The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

UOPD Firearm Forum, Gun Rant

Almost 40 (a generous estimation) people not affiliated with the newly named University of Oregon Piggy Department gathered in Great Global Scholars Hall last night and a public forum started around 6PM. The subject? The arming of UO Police Officers.

Jamie Moffitt explained that amidst budget cuts with EPD and lessened support, the growing campus community has heightened needs.

Public information officer and communications director at UOPD Kelly McIver maintained that armament is part of the mission to keep the campus safe. He also reiterated a few times that UOPD will generally refer students to the Office of Student Conduct, rather inject legal troubles into their lives.

“Police are not here to police students,” McIver urged. Fun fact according to officials: 88% percent of the suspicious persons investigated by UO Public Safety last year were people unaffiliated with the UO.

Interim Police Chief Carolyn McDermed said it’s really all about relationships. Building a relationship with the community in order to best serve their needs.

The Register Guard has a good play-by-play.

Yes, as of January 1st, 2012 the men and women public-safetying our campus are suffering an inferiority complex. Currently, the UOPD has eleven sworn police officers with thirteen public safety officers aiding them. Only a “couple of” (which I can only assume to mean at maximum but also minimum two) officers are on duty during its 24/7 operation.

In the spirit of the Great Global Scholars Hall, I must ask, “Qué tipo de mierda es eso? Súper inefectivo!”

But UOPD agrees. They don’t feel like our needs are being fulfilled. Since direct cooperation between Eugene Police Department and UOPD ended in 2010, EPD has not had a presence on campus unless the UO Department called them. They think carrying handguns gives them more power.

UOPD officials were holding on to two main arguments for arming:

  1. It allows officers to carry out all the regular duties, including ones that potentially threaten lives.
  2. It acts as a deterrant to violent perpetrators.

It was interesting to hear those arguments alongside Captain Pete Deshpande urging that firearms wouldn’t change the culture in anyway.

As an audience member pointed out, “That’s simply not true. The very fact that you are now called UOPD and not Public Safety has created a culture change.”

Although the forum saw an array of beliefs, many students questioned how arming the police officers would make them more safe. They feel that Herein lies the logical fallacy! Question: Who does a sidearm (handgun) protect? Answer: The user and not much else past 10 yards. Just as Chief McDermed said, the dire situations that would necessitate the use of a firearm are over in 5-10 minutes! That kind of response time by police is unheard of, infrequent at best. Especially if they have but two officers on duty at any time.

Lord Nike Swoosh forbid that the UO do anything outside-the-box, or innovative, progressive, even! Why not try a different approach, say a more intimate walking police-force, employing more members of the community, covering more ground and making more connections! As opposed to having an elite group of shiny-badge pistoleros stalking the campus in the shadows of their SUVs.

Perhaps it’s not an inferiority complex, but an identity crisis? Does UOPD have penis gun envy? Ah no! Anxiety as Result of Threat to Reputation! Classic ARTR syndrom, I should have known… McIver himself admits that the status-quo prompted the transition from UOPS to UOPD in a Q&A. I can see how an all-smiles community patrol working in conjunction with UOPD wouldn’t really make the University of Oregon brand look too good.

As for motor vehicles being more effective to get around campus, I think it’s horseshit. The bicycle is most certainly the quickest and least stressful means to get around campus. Walking is too slow, especially when you have to stop to grab a coffee. People try to run over skateboarders. Segways look funny. Finally with cars, there’s too many damn skateboarders and not enough parking spots. Actually, maybe horses aren’t a bad idea. At the very least, have these fucking cops biking around and walking on the sidewalks like normal people. Have them talking to students and building these “relationships” that Chief McDermed is talking about.

“We want the students to see us as real people,” Chief McDermed said at the forum, always with the quiet sugar-water voice.

We’ll see you as real people if you be real, Chief! You aren’t arming yourselves to protect us! A sidearm protects you from us! A sidearm is a personal defense weapon. As the police chief said, dire situations occur and end in 5-10 minutes. This (after our Second Amendment, of course) is why the alleged ban on weapons of Oregon University System properties. Before arming our campus police, we must first and foremost lift the campus ban on weapons!

To see a decrease in crime, it would prove better to lift the ridiculous encroachment by the University Administration upon our Second Amendment rights and encourage students and faculty to apply for their Concealed Handgun Licences. I implore the women out there to do this, at least, so when that forcible fondler presses on after a “No!” and a “Help!” you can unclick the trigger safety just relieve that son of a bitch of his kneecaps and/or balls.

It makes no sense to talk about safety of the community in terms of arming police officers! We need be wary of UOPD’s rationale because this logic is flawed! They talk about arming police to protect the civilians; they talk about driving motor vehicles in order to travel quickly. Their logic is flawed!

Pigs don’t carry guns to protect us. They carry guns to protect themselves. They don’t drive around in dark SUVs to protect us. They do it do cage us and to protect themselves.

Until I can carry a gun on campus, I don’t see it fair that anyone else should. According to Oregon law, as per ORS 166.291, CHL holders are expressly permitted in public buildings and property with their firearm. It is argued that ORS 351.060 (1) and (2) grant the Oregon University System permission violate that right. I think that is more horseshit. The wording is so:

The State Board of Higher Education may:

(1)Control and provide for, subject to the conditions of this section, the custody and occupation of the grounds, buildings, books, papers and documents belonging to each and all of the public universities and offices, departments or activities under the control of the State Board of Higher Education.

(2)Manage, control and apply all property of whatever nature given to or appropriated for the use, support or benefit of any or all of the public universities or offices, departments or activities under the control of the State Board of Higher Education, according to the terms and conditions of such gift or appropriation. Moneys received under this section shall be deposited in a designated account in the Oregon University System Fund established by ORS 351.506 (Oregon University System Fund). Interest earned by the account shall be credited to the account.

Nothing in that statute states that the U.S. Constitution is void on University grounds. So, I say, they can have their guns, but we need our guns too. If the reasoning is to increase campus safety, what we need is more service members doing more footwork.

Everyone is encouraged to email campuspolicing(at)uoregon(dot)edu with questions and comments pertaining to UOPD or its guns.


Undercover phone pic snapped by Jazmin Avalos on Feb. 8, 2013

  1. AJ Y says:

    Hey, I’m a different AJ (I believe we follow eachother on Twitter) and I just wanted to say that I enjoyed the article, and your criticism which is clearly very educated and not unfounded as the some of the previous comments suggest.

  2. Nick Ekblad says:

    The UO’s safety problem is not that we need UOPD to be able to transport suspects and make traffic stops! The safety problem is girls getting raped at 2 in the morning.

    Hmmm, probably because UOPD is understaffed and overpaid.

  3. Nick Ekblad says:

    Thanks, Big T.

    But thank you too, AJ. I appreciate all comments and criticisms, within reason, that is. It really hurt my feel-bads when you questioned my intelligence and brought my mother into the mix.

    If people are concerned about their personal safety (whether it be in the midday crowd on 13th and University or in the dark isolation of Pioneer Cemetery) 25 cops with guns (two on duty!!!) are not going to help (unless you are the luckiest person in the world). What will help is a can of bear mace or atleast a 9mm compact.

    Now, for those that think cops are protecting US with their Glocks, I don’t know how to argue with that without descending into insults, and questioning intelligence.

    So, addressing UOPD’s concerns…
    1. Self-defense: If you fear for your life, officer, then I should fear for mine. LET ME CONCEAL CARRY.
    2. Carrying duties: Guns are tools/deterrents that allow police officers to carry out certain duties that they would otherwise be unable to do.

    The question becomes: Do we want UOPD to stretch themselves thin, POLICING the campus area? OR do we want them to be an intimate, helpful and responsive safety force?

  4. Big T says:

    PPS If you want to see an article finished at 2:30 at Rennie’s, here’s the link:

  5. Big T says:

    I just want to say that I thought this was a well informed, well written educational article with plenty of personal opinion added in. This blog post does reflect Nick’s own beliefs, but he also presents (very fairly) what the UOPD was saying, and he takes the time to point out that he doesn’t agree with their line of reasoning. If we want to see an awkward, rambling argument based on no logic whatsoever, all we need to do is look up a few comments to see what AJ wrote.

    PS Fuck yeah we should all be allowed to concealed carry on campus

  6. Nick Ekblad says:

    First of all, being a contributer to a journal of opinión (and not calling myself a journalist, ever), I can be as biased as I want. To think anything doesn´t carry some degree of bias is naive.

    Second of all, I am not personally against the police from carrying guns. It is just as much their right as it is mine. Furthermore, they are now a Police Department and there is little we can do to stop them from arming themselves.

    If I were a Piggy, I would most definitely want to protect MYSELF with a gun. I was merely trying to show that they are framing the armament as a way to make the campus safer. Framing it in this manner is conniving.

    And you are incorrect, sir. I finished it in Rennie´s at about midnight.

  7. AJ says:

    Wow, biased much? Piggies? How old are you? You can’t make a coherent point. You espouse walking patrols, then say they wouldn’t be effective. Do you know how big campus is and the area it encompasses, or are you one of those that believes “the center of campus is wherever I am.” I see that you are also one of those people that believes you should be able to carry a gun on campus with a concealed carry permit and a few hours of range time, yet police officers, with over 40 hours of firearms training, shouldn’t. I wonder who really suffers from the inferiority complex, huh? “Until I can carry a gun on campus, I don’t see it fair that anyone else should.” I do like your “Precious Snowflake” argument here. It just proves to me you still haven’t hit adulthood yet and still believe you can yell “No fair” and mommy will fix it for you. I was assuming you wrote this at 230 in the morning at Rennies, so I was going to overlook the flawed arguments, the rambling thoughts, and the disjointed ideas. Now I know that the issues I have with your article are because you haven’t educated yourself in the real world and no one has ever asked you to. Maybe next year.

  8. ellen says:

    He’s got pictures to show us! Of all the crimes! Guns will stop ’em!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.