I'm writing a paper: What security did Virginia Tech have to enforce its no-gun policy?

Question

(Sources, please). thanks in advance.

Answer 1

The unarmed Virginia Tech campus security guards provide a "sense" of security. They cannot provide virtual security. The objective of the security guard is to take control of the situation, keep people calm, stop panic and write reports. But even the very best armed bodyguards cannot provide virtual security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Assassination_attempt
On March 30, 1981, only sixty-nine days into the new administration, Reagan, his press secretary James Brady, and two others were struck by gunfire from a deranged would-be assassin, John Hinckley, Jr.. Missing Reagan’s heart by less than one inch, the bullet instead pierced his left lung, which likely spared his life.

HINT: You can use the info in Wikipedia, look up the reference that is listed there or search the info at www.vivisimo.com

Answer 2

What security does any library, convenience store, or daycare have to enforce its policy of "no killing people"? None.

Think about it.

Any entity/government/university/business/person cannot adequately plan for irrational behavior. Psychotic people are a fact of life which you cannot plan for. We can spend billions of dollars trying to secure everything within the public domain, but in the end, its meaningless. If someone really wants to kill a lot of people, they will.

I am always fascinated by those who try to assign blame in cases like this when the perpetrator is dead. The media gets ratings, the fear level goes up, and knee-jerk legislation is made. What is the result? We still have 32 people dead. We are at a greater level of fear. And we have new laws that are passed that make us no safer.

And this is coming from a person who believes that the NRA is a collection of morons who are incapable of understanding law within the very historical context which they cite to try to support their position.

"Security" (anywhere) cannot prevent something like this.

[Final note: If you are writing a paper and soliciting opinions online, why are you asking for "sources"? I would suggest that any research necessary to the composition of your paper be compiled by you. I'm six years out of law school, but times haven't changed that much. You still are responsible for your own work, right? Best of luck, but please do it yourself --for your own academic benefit]

Answer 3

First they passed a law that said no guns on the campus. All of the law abiding folks obeyed the law. Then they posted a sign at the campus entrance that said, no guns allowed. None of the law abiding folks brought guns onto the campus. The person bent on committing criminal acts did not care if he violated another law, so he ignored the sign and the law.

There are no metal detectors at building entrances. Not enough officers to post in each building and dorm. The emergency alert system depends on E-mail and cell phones.

Answer 4

If they had enforced, the Korean brat would not have had a gun on campus. Now, the libs want to take my gun to keep some suicidal nut from killing a bunch of people.
_

Answer 5

It is not the security that matters, dear, it is the will of the community to strictly enforce and follow the no-gun policy! Time will prove its success!