Anyone who has been keeping up with the news over the last decade or so is well aware that college campuses these days are giant toilet bowls brimming with progressive thought, having transformed from institutions of higher learning into indoctrination centers for radical leftism.
A good case in point is a group of socialist students from Stony Brook University in New York who are demanding that campus police — the people tasked with keeping them safe while they get brainwashed — be disarmed.
Why?
To avoid “unnecessary tension” between law enforcement and minorities.
Campus Reform is reporting:
A four-page manifesto released last week by the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) at Stony Brook argues that the president of the university, Samuel Stanley, has the capacity “to revoke firearms from the possession of university police,” adding that the possession of firearms “creates unnecessary tension between officers and the university community, especially between minorities and police.”
“It has been empirically demonstrated that university police are ineffective in the use of firearms, regardless of the quality of training,” the document continues. “Furthermore, the militarization of university police promotes confrontation through violence, as opposed to social engagement, as the solution to mass shootings in America.”
Some students, including the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, endorsed the call to disarm the police during a March 28 demonstration against gun violence organized by the YDSA, according to The Statesman.
“America has a huge gun problem, and any gun control measures must include the demilitarization and disarming of law enforcement agencies,” the chapter’s founder, Thomas Sheroff, told the Statesman. “The Young Democratic Socialists of Stony Brook University call upon President Stanley to truly take the lead in transforming and leading the way the correct future of gun control and disarm the Stony Brook UPD.”
Notably, however, the College Democrats at Stony Brook did not back the demand to disarm the police, instead urging the school to conduct mandatory active shooter trainings for students and campus law enforcement.
In its manifesto, the YDSA argues that “as the armed Sheriff’s deputy at Parkland showed, armed police rarely solve active shooter situations,” but then goes on to insist that if the university is not willing to fully disarm its police force, then “at the very least,” it should ensure that they only carry firearms under certain exceptional circumstances, including when they are responding to calls involving the possession of a deadly weapon.
“It might be said that an armed police officer deters active shooters,” the document notes. “However, a report by SUNY Cortland in 2004 showed there was no significant difference in crime rates between armed and unarmed schools.”
The socialist group also contends that “armed police create an environment of coercion, not consent,” suggesting that Stony Brook should seek to emulate the policing practices in the tiny nation of Iceland, where officers patrol unarmed even though many citizens legally own firearms.
Stony Brook released the following statement in response to the madness above:
“University Police Officers receive extensive firearms and active shooter training, respond to all emergencies on campus, and play an integral role in keeping our campus safe. That said, Stony Brook University embraces the constitutional freedom of speech and thought, whether we agree or disagree with a particular view.”
So disarming highly trained law enforcement officers, leaving them with no weapons that have immediate stopping power, is this group of students grand idea to make campus safe? Really?
The reason police failed in Parkland was because of cowardice. This is clearly exposed when you look at how a resource officer in Maryland responded to an active shooter situation by neutralizing the threat in record time using a gun.
We’ve all heard leftists scream to the hilltop about not wanting the average individual American to have access to firearms, but pushing for law enforcement to be disarmed too? That just seems like the height of foolishness.
