I have tried to listen carefully to the arguments on this subject. Setting aside my personal views of the matter, these are the principal arguments I hear on both sides:
Pro:
1. 19 of 26 COPLAC colleges have armed officers
2. Many Massachusetts colleges and universities have armed officers
3. Since most uniformed officers carry firearms, campus police are potentially at risk without them
4. Firearms are just another tool of protection and law enforcement
5. Parents and potential students are concerned about security on campus, so not arming campus police might hurt recruitment.
Con:
1. Arming officers sends an intimidating and unwelcoming message, particularly to urban and minority students
2. The odds of an on campus incident requiring deadly force are very small
3. The liklihood of guns being useful in such an incident are even smaller
4. The possibility of accident or error on officers’ part, or of the guns being taken from them, is small but real (and statistically greater than 2 or 3).
5. Parents and potential students are concerned about security on campus, so arming campus police might hurt recruitment.
When commenting, please speak to ONE of these reasons at a time -- perhaps begin by addressing the one you take to be the strongest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Professor,
I am just going to say my general idea about arming the campus police. I think that it is a bad idea. My reasoning is because it sends the wrong message. It makes people think that this is a violent campus when, in fact, it is not very violent at all. I have only heard of two fights all year whereas in high school they occurred almost daily. Arming the campus police may encourage violence among students. It may sound silly, but knowing that they are armed may take away people's fears to fight. I think that we should wait until the campus police NEED to be armed. Well, that's my opinion.
Prior to this campus wide conversation, I didn't know Public Safety officers did not carry firearms. In my mind, when one becomes a police officer and is employed to do such work, carrying a firearm is just a part of the job. I support the arming of campus police. The college has a moral responsibility to each and every student to ensure that if something were to go terribly wrong the campus police are properly equipped to solve the problem. MCLA and North Adams does have a low crime rate but the world we live in is unpredictable and this is a situation where its better safe than sorry.
I think the first argument on the "Pro" list (19 of 26 COPLAC colleges have armed officers) is an ad populum fallacy.
Of course, the implied premise is that these colleges would have good reason to do so. However, I would say the mere fact that these colleges have armed their officers is not a legitimate reason in and of itself.
One would have to list the reasons these other colleges have presented for their case instead. Also, apparently some COPLAC colleges have NOT armed their police force.
Assuming these are not all on the fence, perhaps some of them have good reasons to reject guns on campus that we should consider as well.
What if the colleges which did arm themselves are located in more urban and crime-ridden areas? What if the colleges which are not armed are, like ours, rural, small and in an area with comparably very little crime?
Also, I would like to add that introducing guns on campus is not only intimidating in regards to how we view officers, but it also sends the message that this is the kind of campus that needs such drastic means like guns. This is, as far as I can tell, a safe campus, so why introduce such concerns to the consciousness of the student population in the first place?
I agree with Nicole 100%. There is no reason to arm the campus security. We have not given them any reason to do so and, until we do, I think the campus is perfectly safe without guns.
I take it Quincy is amplifying #4 on the pro list. Here are some considerations that argue against #4 being a compelling reason:
The introduction of lethal weaponry is not merely another tool, but a dramatic escalation of risk -- to bystanders, and to the officers themselves (loaded weapons have been taken from police and used against them, and though this is rare, it is quite a bit more common than Virginia Tech-style incidents). Thus statistically we would actually be increasing risk slightly, in order hypothetically to reduce a very much smaller risk.
The observation that this is a normal and accepted feature of policing strikes me as possibly committing an ad populum fallacy as well, or begging the question of whether in fact it SHOULD be accepted.
Nicole effectively neutralizes Pro arguments 1 and 2.
The fifth items cancel each other out (and in any case, both rely on mere anecdote and speculation).
The fourth Pro consideration is, I think, overwhelmed by the second and third Con observations.
Thus the remaining Pro reason with some legs is #3: officer safety. I think we should take this very seriously, and seek some data to bolster it, if there is any. We should also seek statistics on #4 in the Con column, which might show that arming officers would actually increase rather than decrease their personal risk.
If necessities of Campus Police
then call for assistance otherwise this is not good that always police or security is in campus, My opinion is not.
Post a Comment