USC’s down a couple of grad students. A campus cop just shot a wayward community member after he’d robbed four other students at gunpoint. And that was just in the last week. Oh, wait. The ‘C’ in USC stands for California, right? Silly me. So even if, by some miracle, the school’s administration could be persuaded to allow students the privilege of armed self defense (as if), they’d pretty much have to move the campus to Nevada. Or Arizona maybe. From ktla.com: “USC will increase the number of public safety patrol cars and officers in the neighborhoods near campus. It has also invested in video cameras, license plate recognition cameras and ‘security ambassadors’ to patrol the streets bordering the campus.” Those, um, security ambassadors will no doubt be a great comfort not only to the dead students’ parents but the also the parents of the school’s 31,000 other young scholars.
Positive move by USC adding ‘security amb’ass’adors and cameras – no change in the amount of blood spilled by innocents but the cleanup crews can be dispatched sooner.
“Security ambassadors,” are those TSA workers?
Spy cameras and scanners? So no probable cause? No warrants? No 4th Amendment? I think the Taliban have won, at least in California!
Smoke and mirrors.The University Administrators give less than two rat spits about truly securing the campus.Its a numbers game;the administrators aren’t interested in preventing deaths from another shooting as much they are more interested in salvaging their enrollement metric for Fall 2012 semester.Once the press atention dies down the ‘extra’ police and ‘security ambassadors’ will get their walking papers,and life will go on as if it never happened.
Like Ella Fitzgerald once crooned,its all just a little bit of history repeating.
I heard that their police chief doesn’t even punish or fire police who have wrongfully shot (technically murdered or man slaughtered) an innocent unarmed person. Even for repeat offenders. They just get more “training” or a talking to. So it is hard to believe people will be fired when no one is looking.
California has so many laws they now have too many prisoners. To the point it is no longer humane to have them stuffed in a box. So they have to release them. At the same time they removed the right to carry fire(arms).
On top of that they have no money to pay for all their government programs. They are reluctant to fire any government worker. Even if there is unusual amounts of government workers (teachers) that are molesting children.
So it appears California is a great place for government workers and criminals. Not for people with children or who are self reliant and care for their safety.
government workers and criminals sounds a little repetitive to me.
Campus police, huh? Wonder how the Brady’s are going to spin that as they wave their usual bloodied t-shirt flag.
“If only there were a 10 round mag limi… oh wait.”
“Well maybe if it was only a may issu… uhhh…”
“A purchase limit and wait time could have…. doh, nevermind.”
“How about if only authorities and not civilians had… oh… right… well, crap!”
‘Bout right.
There is no end to the excuses. For those who wish to lie, there is a way always
+1
That pretty much sums it up, well more or less…
The campus issue is nation wide, va tech and others.
The safety guys are just students studying criminal justice with some pepper spray. The guards are just rent a cops, nothing against paid security but that is what they are. Police are just that, but they won’t have a force on site large enough to really make a difference.
Although I am hesitant at allowing students to carry, I am all for teachers and staff.
I am sure if students were allowed to carry, it would be fine, but young kids, hormones, and little booze and it is an anti-gun lovers wet dream!
Of course that isn’t founded in any fact and I have no numbers or statistics, to provide, but I remember being in college once. So I am just saying..
Most of those “kids” are old enough to fight and die for their country, or work at any other dangerous and high stress job. I was a cna at 19, surrounded by powerful drugs and was expected to do CPR (and did about a dozen times). Give my generation a little more credit.
I hate to say this, however USC is in a VERY bad part of LA. I’m actually surprised this doesn’t happen a lot more. As for allowing students to carry, yeah right not in the communist state of California.
<– Former California resident and USC season football ticket holder.
It may take something akin to the Goetz case for things to turn around in the People’s Republik of Califus. Then again – CA may be beyond hope.
I grew up there and for good and bad there is a general disregard for whatever laws the state hands down. With that stated, the mentality there favors those who shoot and run verses someone trying to do the right thing – stands his ground (yeah I went there), fires, and sticks around to sort the mess out. The powers that be would love to make an example out of that person. Cops can kill people all day, but someone in genuine peril (in one of the most violent places in America) is supposed to allow himself/herself to be a victim.
My condolences to the families of the students who died.
USC’s located in a pretty rough neighborhood, but with the amount of money they charge students for tuition, you’d think they’d at least spend the money on :
-Better security
-Classes to educate students how to be safe and defend themselves
Arming more good people is not the answer to the problem that bad guys have guns. The answer is not in more guns but in fewer. Disarming the bad guys is what we need to do.
By maintaining gun free zones we at lease ensure that in the meantime none of the good guys who suddenly turn bad will have guns on them.
Gun free zones do more good in prevention than they do harm in allowing bad guys a free reign
Troll comment if I ever seen one…. Really? Get real
Another Mr. Bonomo post supporting armed criminals.
Mr. Michael Bonomo: Better 10 USC students murdered than one gangsta harmed.
Just seen his blog, and how skewed can someone’s ideas get…? WOW….
I’ve had just about ENOUGH of your insolence. From now on you will address me as Mr. Mikeb.
Get a job and get out of your mother’s basement Mr. Mikeb. was that addressing you correct? A job will get you things… things you might want to protect with a gun… like a wife and children
Gun free zones have proven only to prevent the ability of the victims to avert their own deaths.
The campus gun-free zone tactic is a method which has been tried and has failed the test of real world usage. A better solution ,for the honest security of college kids and their families, must be devised.
“Gun free zones have proven only to prevent the ability of the victims to avert their own deaths.”
That sounds good and that’s what all your friends keep saying but the fact is you don’t know that. You don’t know if that’s the ONLY thing gun free zones do.
Well one thing we most certainly know gun free zones do not accomplish is scare away people with guns who aren’t afraid to use them for malicious purposes.
Has any victim in an active shooter scenario ever thought to themselves, “Man, I sure am glad I don’t have a gun”?
MikeB,please offer a case where a gun free zone prevented a violent crime.I stand waiting for evidence which supports your claim.
If your response to this post even *hints* at an ad hominem or no true scotsman tactic,count on being on my ignore list for good.
You know very well you cannot prove a negative. That’s why you have to use your head and put aside you bias for a moment.
You know those stories you read about where people get fired from the job, or the girlfriend breaks up with them or they just blow their top for know discernible reason and pull out a gun and shoot up the joint. You have seen those stories, right? Well they don’t happen in gun free zones.
Can’t you draw a logical conclusion from that? Of course you can. The only question left is how often are shootings prevented in gun free zones, not whether or not this happens, but how often.
Actually you can show evidence to prove a negative.
Figure out how many shootings occur in a subset of Gun Free Zones (say, schools), then figure out how many shootings occur in similar areas that allow guns (say, schools in Utah). Compare the two numbers.
If (using my examples) there is a higher incidence of shootings in schools in Utah than there is in schools that ban guns, then you can say that Gun Free Zones are negatively correlated with shootings.
If there is the same incidence of shootings in schools in Utah as there is in schools that ban guns, then you can say that Gun Free Zones are not correlated with shootings.
Finally, if there is a lower incidence of shootings in schools in Utah as there ins in schools that ban guns, then the only conclusion you can draw is that Gun Free Zones are positively correlated with shootings.
You are, of course, free to use your own subsets, and I’ll just ask you to be honest and pick that subset before you look for data, rather than looking at the data and finding a subset that you like.
Correlation goes a long way in studies where there are few points of evidence, yet policy requires us to draw conclusions. But you still need numbers and actual, cite-able events.
I hope you enjoy this response, as it is the last one I will make to you in light of your failure to provide any kind of fact for your side of matters.
Your statement:**** You know those stories you read about where people get fired from the job, or the girlfriend breaks up with them or they just blow their top for know discernible reason and pull out a gun and shoot up the joint. You have seen those stories, right? Well they don’t happen in gun free zones.***
…is categorically false. Virginia Tech in 2007 was a strict “gun free zone”. USC was at the time of the above incident, and remains one today. Columbine didn’t permit its students to be armed at all, and Fort Hood NEVER authorized concealed carry at any time:even sworn law enforcement has to check in their heaters on a Federal Installation.
-ST
Whoaaaa halt the train “ST.” You don’t actually expect mikeb to cite any stats or sources do you? In related news, pigs did not fly today.
I don’t think even USC could teach mikeb the value of quantitative analysis vs. qualitative analysis (especially the kind based on personal opinion generated by his fear of “good guys who suddenly turn bad” and having guns…in gun free zones)
“By maintaining gun free zones we at lease ensure that in the meantime none of the good guys who suddenly turn bad will have guns on them.”
What a rediculous statement. You act like the evil emperor is going around turning ‘good guys’ to the dark side. Typical factless assumptions and generalizations from mikeb.
I think it defeats the point and positives of CCW to deny that privalidge/right (whichever way you view it) in any location that is not capable of securing its property/building borders. If you’re going to disarm me as a law abiding gun owner at the door, you better be damn sure that you can account for my safety. Putting up a sign and declaring it a gun free zone does not accomplish that goal. If people paid attention to and respected signs, then wouldn’t there be zero school shootings? How much do you respect speed limit signs? Excessive speeding many times is the cause of accidents and death, but are we denying the use of cars on the roads that contain the most children?
Yeah, don’t bother rehashing those pseudo statistics which you base your whole argument on even though the data which goes into them is shit.
Provide some statistics then on where you come up with the claim about it’s inevitable that good people turn bad.
What is “pseudo” about any of the statistics people cite on here? Every time anyone responsible on here brings up statistics, they cite their sources. You on the other hand continually make claims and irroneous statements with zero studies, stats, facts, or sources cited. No offense, but all you do is embarass yourself by continually writing in this manner, and even more so by attacking those who do provide sources based on legitimate studies. If the stats are wrong then demonstrate how and say why they are flawed. People jump on you on this site, not because you would prefer more regulation, but because you don’t cite anything and you just make generalized statements that you believe to be true but provide no evidence to support your statements.
The facts may or may not support your opinions, but this is something you have to approach with a quantitative analysis with facts and figures, not qualitative analysis based on individual opinion.
Sorry, Mike, but all the available evidence indicates just the opposite. Facts are inconvenient things, ain’t they?
ALL the available evidence, I don’t think so.
According to Gun Facts 6.0 on page 37, http://www.gunfacts.info/, which is even so kind and responsible enough to cite its sources;
Based on number of permits issued, permits revoked, and overal population; historical evidence shows that conceal permit holders are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses compared to the general public and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses compared to the general public.
Most if not almost all mass shootings occur in gun free zones. See what happens when you use facts instead of… hallucinations, I’m guessing is where you got that from, even the usual suspect grabbers don’t say things that devoid of logic.
“By maintaining gun free zones we at lease ensure that in the meantime none of the good guys who suddenly turn bad will have guns on them.”
Mikeys pea brain seems to be stuck in a do-loop.
Disarming the bad guys is what we need to do.
And once we’re done with that, we can give everyone a free unicorn, too. Make mine royal blue, please.
While we wait for that to pay off, I propose that we also try letting people take responsibility for their own defense and give them access to the most convenient and effective tools available today for those purposes. That means handguns.
All right, that does sound a little pie-in-the-sky.
I mean we need to disarm as many of the bad guys as we can. But you knew that.
Actually to Michael I think this is ware I disagree with you.
Columbine
CSU
Okios University
Virginia Tech
Green Junior High School
Delaware State University
Henry Foss High School
West Nickel Mines Amish School
Dawson College
I could go on and on..
Safe to say these are gun free zones. You don’t hear about people going off in a police station or if they do they usually don’t get to far.
I lived in Israel where they have one of the highest per capita armed public int he world, yet gun related crimes are extremely low. In fact gun related “accidents” among children are also extremely low.
Have you been around the current crop of college students lately? One thing for sure, even allowed to cross the street by themselves is a security issue. Letting them carry firearms does not make me feel warm and fuzzy.
People act like the goal is to have the government set up a soup line, but for handing out guns. Even college students still have to operate within the realm of the law of acquiring a firarm, and pass a background check everytime they go to a store and purchase a firearm. Gun free zones (AKA defensless target zone) are more dangerous and vulnrable, not more safe than anywhere else.
A refreshing gust of common-sense laden air.
That’s a very odd way of spelling fallacy.
“Security Issue”. “Warm and Fuzzy”.
If we decided who has the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of personal responsibility, a lot of cops and military members would be taking pointy sticks to the beat.
Personally, id rather see guns in the immature hands of college students who are subject to law and order, versus seeing the same weapons carried by people of the same immature mindset who are “exempt” from scrutiny by the Blue Wall.
Completely agree. You cannot label a group of people with a level of perceived personal responability. That is extremely discrimatory.
Mike,
“Disarming the bad guys is what we need to do.”
When are you going to realize that is not going to happen? Weapons are everywhere, and they are not that hard to make. We need a more moral society, not a less capable one.
I agree with you about the moral society and the problem of violent criminals getting out of jail too soon, and all the other factors that go into it, but we also need to make it harder for unfit and dangerous people go get guns.
Well here’s a little thought for you, the dangerous and unstable want to kill in the most dramatic method they can the one that fits their romantic fantasy of themselves, to wit going out in a blaze of glory, if they can’t get guns the next easiest options are fire and explosions, maybe all things considered limiting access to guns could make things worse, just a thought.
For instance, you can make a pretty good sized bomb out of a laptop battery and one piece of wire (you have to hold the thing as it goes off, so if you’re going to try it, do so at home where you won’t hurt anyone else).
Household cleaning agents can also be made into a bomb. If I can expand my search from what I can make in my house right now, I can go to Wal-Mart or Home Depot and then the options for making explosives simply explode (sorry, I had to).
If you want a gun where they’re illegal, you can make a shotgun out of a piece of pipe, a nail, and some rubber bands. In China, where civilian ownership of firearms is strictly banned, people have made some surprisingly high quality semi- and fully- automatic firearms in backyard machine shops. Backyard Machine Guns made by people who have the equivalent of a 5th grade formal education if we’re generous.
Criminals who want weapons will have weapons. Full Stop. There is literally nothing we can do, as a society, to prevent this. So the question falls to how best to protect the non-criminals, and my answer to that is either personal police officers or personal firearms.
George Zimmerman was a “security ambassador” …
USC could give a %#@ about “students”. hahaha… 10 more will happily replace them (& secure CA. FREE funding, too)! and USC KNOWS it!!
“license plate recognition cameras”… hahaha… literally rolling on the floor… end result: more students endup getting ticketed for USC ‘parking’ & ‘permit’ violations, that all. MO’ MONEY, MO’ MONEY, MO’ MONEY (income generator) for USC… What a farce university. SHUT USC DOWN – that would cure the prob in a nutshell.
The facts may or may not support your opinions, but this is something you have to approach with a quantitative analysis with facts and figures, not qualitative analysis based on individual opinion.
Actually, I have an issue with the gun free zone colleges in that much of the argument for not having them is that a bunch of drunk young students inhabit them.
I hate to hit the morons out there, but a lot of older people way over 21 are now attending colleges.
OK, youngest daughter will be 19.
Oldest Daughter attending Masters Program will be 27.
Wife attending Medical Tech classes is 50.
I brushed up on some 3D Cad programs at 52.
I would say that a lot of college courses have people with gray hair in them.
PS.
Mom took computer classes in her 60s.
I agree it’s not the young students that represent the greatest problem to allowing guns. It’s the teachers, the custodians, the cleaning staff and the older students. Some of them have problems that are not detected in the background checks and other requirements we now have, especially in places like Arizona.
Mike,
I ask this question sincerely. It is not a “loaded” question or one where I am trying to make a point. With that stated . . . Have you ever been to Arizona?
Yes, I visited Arizona several times many years ago. One of the most beautiful things I’ve ever seen was the drive between Phoenix and Flagstaff. So what? No lawful gun owners tried to shoot me while I was there. So what?
As far as piss-poor gun control, domestic violence with a gun, negligence with a gun, and general Neanderthal attitudes towards political issues, Arizona is only surpassed by Florida.
Do I need to experience those things personally while physically there to know them? I think not.
Of course you do not need to go to a place to know something about it. Its just w/ all the vitriol on both sides it can be helpful to sometimes spend time w/ the other side. If people replaced their negative comments based on place of origin w/ race . . . for more people would be up in arms.
So Arizonans do not do things the way you would like. Are you content to let them be them or should they change to suit your views?