TexasCHLforum.com

Are college and university campus police departments unnecessary?

If I understand the arguments against campus carry, there's no need for campus police departments. In places where normal citizens can carry, they have a mediocre record at stopping active shooters on campus, so we shouldn't allow normal citizens to carry on campus. However, when I started looking at places where campus police are allowed to carry, they have less effective record than normal citizens at stopping active shooters on campus. (Normalizing for campuses each group can carry.) Campus police departments also cost money but campus carry is free for the universities. With the current budget shortfalls, can the taxpayers afford a solution that has higher costs and less benefit stopping active shooters?

Campus police, just like other police have other functions than just dealing with active shooters. Using your same line of thought, all police are unecessary in Texas because CHL carry is allowed.

WildBill wrote:Campus police, just like other police have other functions than just dealing with active shooters. Using your same line of thought, all police are unecessary in Texas because CHL carry is allowed.

That's just what I was thinking. They have many other responsibilities and in fact rarely ever stop an active shooter themselves.

Campus police do a lot more than respond to active shooter situations. They investigate crimes, arrest perpetrators, write tickets for moving violations, provide security for events, ensure that buildings are properly secured at the appropriate times, etc., etc., etc. If there were no campus police those duties would fall on the local police department.

WildBill wrote:Campus police, just like other police have other functions than just dealing with active shooters. Using your same line of thought, all police are unecessary in Texas because CHL carry is allowed.

You and your logic...

For example A&M has 48k ish undergrads. Plus grad students, faculty, staff, and support services. They have property in every county in Texas except 2. They are a huge operation and UPD is one small part of that. They are a full line police department, with patrol, investigators, victim services, etc. They are bit more than armed security guards.

I think that's the point he was making. That the anti's arguments are without merit.

Obviously campus police have duties other than just waiting for a mass shooter; CHLs don't only carry because they are sitting around waiting for the rare mass shooter. But usually if you extend any "anti" argument out to a conclusion, their argument fails.
----------------
It's like their "the only use for a" arguments which announce only one of many uses of an item and deny other valid uses.
The only use for a gun is to kill and maim" Police need them because they encounter armed criminals
The only reason for a hi cap magazine is to shoot lots real fast, police need them because they sometimes encounter MANY criminals
The only reason for a pen is to write citations, students don't need to write citations.
---------
All their arguments initially are based upon at least one false premise. None hold up under scrutiny/close examination.

Like the AT&T commercial .... "Makes sense if you DON'T think about it"

They try to say we carry to stop "Virginia Tech" situations, but ignore all other aggravated assaults, robberies, etc. OBVIOUSLY without campus police, we'd either need city/State/County police to come write tickets for parking stickers or deputize CHLs to do it, because campus police have duties other than waiting for mass shooters. (just kidding)

I think Ameer was just pointing out what the 2002 Government report showed, that although police have good "response time" that they rarely stop a "school shooter" (study wasn't on armed rapists, robbers, but only "shootings" at "school"; not display of a weapon to rob/rape etc where no shot is fired) and that students faculty and staff are "always" the "first responders" from a finance/school funding point of view (in the news/legislature now) in that limited rare situation ... like the anti group limit an argument to one usage .. AS IF campus police are only used to stop school shootings but ... (using the "Anti" technique, which is always flawed, to make that point, that it is flawed.)

Leastways, that's what I got out of it.

RPB wrote:I think that's the point he was making. That the anti's arguments are without merit. Leastways, that's what I got out of it.

I gathered that from his

The crime rate on campus is so much lower than in surrounding areas, so of course we don't need campus police. I mean obviously if the anti's don't want concealed carey on campus just because the crime rate is lower, surely the same applies to police.

AJ80 wrote:The crime rate on campus is so much lower than in surrounding areas, so of course we don't need campus police. I mean obviously if the anti's don't want concealed carey on campus just because the crime rate is lower, surely the same applies to police.

Ameer's topic "Are campus police unnecessary?" was confusing to me. Why didn't he ask, "Are Campus Police Necessary?"

Ameer wrote:Are college and university campus police departments unnecessary?
............Campus police departments also cost money but campus carry is free for the universities. With the current budget shortfalls, can the taxpayers afford a solution that has higher costs and less benefit stopping active shooters?

An interesting aspect to the question is the cost. Who does pay for them? I thought their cost would fall on the students and the fees/tuition would pay for the department. If not, then its valid to look at any redundancy and understand the value.

I think a similar argument could be made for constables (I digress ). They used to be necessary in small population areas but as cities have sprawled out to envelope many precincts they may not serve a unique purpose either.

Money, or rather the lack of it, has a way of disclosing excess costs.

I went to highschool and college. and we didn't have school police. Colleges had security guards to harrass parking violators but were always unarmed. The vice principal was a pretty effective enforcer.

I think we were safer then.

baldeagle wrote:Campus police do a lot more than respond to active shooter situations.

If it weren't for campus police, what would keep the asphalt in the most remote corner of the most remote parking lot from getting lonely at night?

Campus police are needed to protect students from CHL holders who illegally CC in class.

Liberty wrote:I went to highschool and college. and we didn't have school police. Colleges had security guards to harrass parking violators but were always unarmed. The vice principal was a pretty effective enforcer.

I think we were safer then.

Our vice principle was a collector of militaria, especially WWII German militaria. We did "The Diary of Anne Frank" and he provided SS regalia and uniform components, a Mauser rifle and P-08 (try that these days ). Needless to say, he was well respected (feared) and never disobeyed.