In the article “Girls, guys and Glocks?” (March 9), the writer talks of allowing some staff at some universities to be armed in order to stop a mad shooter before the carnage becomes too great.

Good idea!

Then the writer immediately talks of allowing students on the Maine campuses to be armed in self defense against a shooter.

Not necessarily a good idea.

This change of subject does the reader a disservice and clouds the issue. We were talking of arming some of the staff.

Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign presented the worst-case scenario, of course, but the fact remains that police cannot respond in good time to prevent, or stop, anyone with a grudge against society (or harboring a grievance of previous incidents that hurt them).

Roger Philippon of Central Maine Community College argues that drugs and alcohol are on campus, and that is trouble enough, but firearms are banned.

Get real!

If someone wants to bring illegal substances on campus, why argue that a ban will stop anyone who is bent on a mass shooting from bringing a gun on campus?

The whole idea is to stop the shooter immediately. We should allow at least some responsible people on campus, armed and trained, to be the first responders.

As a former police firearms instructor, believe me, it will work enough to stop the carnage, certainly keep it to a minimum.

Hap Gallin, West Sumner