UAA students rally for right to carry guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    students
Click For Summary
UAA students are advocating for the right to carry firearms on campus, viewing themselves as potential first responders in emergencies. Some students express anxiety about being unprotected in classrooms, citing past school shootings as reasons for their stance. Critics argue that allowing guns could lead to increased risks and accidents, as individuals may not have the training necessary to handle firearms responsibly in chaotic situations. The discussion highlights concerns about safety, the effectiveness of armed civilians in preventing shootings, and the implications of constitutional rights regarding gun ownership on college campuses. The debate continues to raise questions about the balance between personal rights and community safety in educational environments.
  • #31
berkeman said:
I think Moonbear and Vanadium have touched on the key point in all of this.

I don't think I made any point at all. Just answering rootX's question.

Of course "prevent a massacre" is a very high standard. If a gunman gets a few shots off himself before he himself is subdued, the massacre hasn't been prevented. It's effects have been curtailed. If the gunman didn't get any shots off, this will be portrayed by his attorneys as a case where a vigilante crowd overreacted to a mentally ill man brandishing a gun with no intent to fire. (What else would you expect them to say?)

There is also media bias. I'm not talking about a perceived bias of the media towards one or the other pole of the political spectrum, but that the media tends to report - and repeat - stories that are spectacular, extraordinary and dramatic. A gunman who shoots up a school or a shopping mall is makes for a more dramatic story than one where he is subdued by off-duty police before anything happens. So we shouldn't be surprised if a search for well-publicized examples gives us a different answer than a statistical study. (This is why people think air travel is more dangerous than automobile travel - every plane crash is reported. Car crashes are only reported if Britney Spears was driving)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
junglebeast said:
This little demonstration is not exactly hard proof that students or the general public are completely incapable of defending themselves. It also neglects the fact that some people who are attending school might actually be highly trained with a firearm.

Did you watch the video (including the second part?) The experiment included at least two people who were as "highly trained with a firearm" as one could hope for, having fired several weapons for hundreds of hours at a firing range. Of these students, one just froze and the other fired two shots into the wall and two into the floor, whilst hitting the shooter once on the arm. In the firefight she took 6 bullets to the torso.

It's not "hard proof," but it's experimental evidence: the only experimental evidence we have. Of course, many people will just try and brush it off, but then that's natural when someone's personal opinions get in the way of extracting fact from a situation.
 
  • #33
Breaking news: a UGA professor just shot a number of people on campus.
 
  • #34
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/25/georgia.shootings/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iw8wxkpeLufk-1Be-7iJBhA344iAD97PMIJG1

ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Three people were killed Saturday at a community theater near the University of Georgia, and authorities were searching for a professor in the shooting deaths.
...
Athens-Clarke Assistant Police Chief Alan Brown tells The Athens-Banner Herald that there is "some indication he may have had multiple weapons."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
cristo said:
You touch on the main point here: these people are deranged. Thus, you can't draw any conclusions as to whether they may or may not be put off by the students carrying weapons, since they don't think like normal people. These people aren't afraid to die, either: how many of these criminals walk out alive after the incident?
Again, the people who do this sort of thing are looking for power and control. Do they walk into police stations? Military bases? Or even locations with armed security guards?
And everyone is afraid to die. They don't walk out themselves because they usually kill themselves, another means of maintaining control.

Cristo said:
But, as shown in the experiment, none of the students managed to "take down" the gunman. Even students who had lots of experience either only hit the gunman in the arm, or were peppered before hitting him (of course, one shot to a student's torso and you're not likely to stand there shooting back anymore!)
Sorry, I was at work and had not actually watched the video. I was working solely off of Moonie's description.
matthyaouw said:
I'm not sure how much of a fair test this was. In the video, the gunman was a trained professional, in a stable state of mind and quite likely knew what to expect and which student would be carrying the gun. Everything was tipped in their favour.

cristo said:
But in attacks like these, everything is tipped in the gunman's favour anyway! The element of surprise is always with the gunman, as he simply runs into rooms and shoots people. The experiment clearly showed that a student cannot "take down" a gunman entering the classroom in such a manner. In these situations, you're bound to have a split second to make the judgment; namely when the gunman shoots the first person. Even if the gunman did know in the audience was armed, this doesn't make a difference when the student jumps up and (trys to) draw a weapon on the gunman: he sees it then anyway!

If there were some slight differences, say the students took one bullet before disabling the gunman, then maybe your argument holds. However, in all the instances, the students either didn't shoot/hit the gunman or hit the gunman once whilst having taken over 5 bullets.

In attacks like these the shooter is rather unlikely to be a highly trained weapons expert. How many head shots did the shooter get? A very difficult target even for a calm collected professional. Change that to a more or less average joe with adrenaline pumping through their system. On top of that these shooters rarely just shoot everyone. They target certian individuals that they recognize and take take pot shots at other random targets. A real shooter will likely have the same issues as these would be heroes in the experiment: adrenaline, focusing only on individual targets, surprise at the reactions of the students, ect.

I would also argue that the set up of the scene is rather unrealistic. The would be heroes have been programmed to believe that they are there to try to shoot these people and take that as their objective (in a simulation no less) rather than the standard objective of survival. I think you will have a hard time finding anyone outside of those with military or military like training whose initial response to real shooters would have been Shoot To Kill. I also believe that the reactions of the students was unrealistic. A significant number of people are more likely to decide to hide rather than run. In most descriptions of mass shootings you will find that several people describe themselves and others hiding under desks and such. No one in the video hid except maybe temporarily. They all jumped up, screamed, and ran for the door despite the fact that the danger was in that direction and a normal flight response is to flee away from danger. In videos of real shootings you will even see people running at walls and away from doors. The actions of the students only served to leave the student (who had been preprogrammed to shoot instead of flee or hide) with the gun the center of attention who was of course sitting front and center in every run.

Take out the trained pros and actors, replace them with regular people who don't know exactly what will be happening, then I'll be more inclined to believe the outcome.
 
  • #36
TheStatutoryApe said:
Again, the people who do this sort of thing are looking for power and control.

Sorry I might have missed but last time you were assuming this. Can you prove that they are looking for power and control? I think it would be far easier to tackle the problem if we know what is causing it.

I think neither complete ban in the classrooms nor providing full training would solve this problem which in my opinion is resulting from complex social problems (poverty, child care, environment etc). So you wouldn't be addressing the real problem in either of those two options.
 
  • #37
Vanadium 50 said:
Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002.

Thanks.
 
  • #38
TheStatutoryApe said:
Also should be considered how many people tend to die and become injured in these shootings and how many less may become victims if the shooter is taken down more quickly even if you count victims incident to crossfire.

While I agree but I see some serious ethical/law issues. Who is going to take the responsibility for the deaths by error?
 
  • #39
cristo said:
Did you watch the video (including the second part?) The experiment included at least two people who were as "highly trained with a firearm" as one could hope for, having fired several weapons for hundreds of hours at a firing range. Of these students, one just froze and the other fired two shots into the wall and two into the floor, whilst hitting the shooter once on the arm. In the firefight she took 6 bullets to the torso.

It's not "hard proof," but it's experimental evidence: the only experimental evidence we have. Of course, many people will just try and brush it off, but then that's natural when someone's personal opinions get in the way of extracting fact from a situation.

Yes, I did watch the video -- and thanks to Moonbear for posting it! It was entertaining to watch. However, I think you are missing my points here... your opinion on a person's ability to defend oneself should not take away their right to attempt to defend oneself.

A person either has a right to defend oneself, or they don't...and it's not your business to judge the abilities of the general population without knowing who those people might be.

For example, a person might be an active member of the local swat team who also happens to be a student at the local university while off duty. Do you still think that person is so hopelessly incapable of defending themselves and others? Because the law applies to that person as well.
 
  • #40
I used to fight against guns, but now I support it. I think we should be allowed to own a whenever we please.

I can't imagine fighting against the government without guns. We would be hopeless.
 
  • #41
JasonRox said:
I can't imagine fighting against the government without guns. We would be hopeless.

I think you would be pretty hopeless fighting against the government with a gun as well, but you might at least be able to die with glory and take a few people down with you.
 
  • #42
junglebeast said:
However, I think you are missing my points here... your opinion on a person's ability to defend oneself should not take away their right to attempt to defend oneself.

It's not an opinion on the ability of a person to defend himself. As I said above, there is experimental evidence that an average person, with or without shooting range experience, is unable to defend himself. I'm also taking the words of a proven expert, namely the marksman in the video, who said that he would require refresher training in a hostage type environment every month, otherwise he would become less able to do his job in a safe way.

Are you telling me that I cannot take the results of an experiment, and the advice of a trained expert? If so, then I'm afraid this is equivalent to a kid saying "I know better.."

For example, a person might be an active member of the local swat team who also happens to be a student at the local university while off duty. Do you still think that person is so hopelessly incapable of defending themselves and others? Because the law applies to that person as well.

If someone is a part time student and an active member of a swat team, then sure, let him carry a gun. But this is an anomaly, and thus not worth considering.

JasonRox said:
I can't imagine fighting against the government without guns. We would be hopeless.

I can't imagine anyone fighting against a government with a gun... and winning!
 
  • #43
cristo said:
It's not an opinion on the ability of a person to defend himself. As I said above, there is experimental evidence that an average person, with or without shooting range experience, is unable to defend himself. I'm also taking the words of a proven expert, namely the marksman in the video, who said that he would require refresher training in a hostage type environment every month, otherwise he would become less able to do his job in a safe way.

Are you telling me that I cannot take the results of an experiment, and the advice of a trained expert? If so, then I'm afraid this is equivalent to a kid saying "I know better.."

You have clearly misinterpreted this little news media game to be an "experiment", and somehow you think it also has unambiguous results? Please do share with us what new facts about life this video has unquestioningly proven. By my count: nada. This is not a scientific experiment. It doesn't prove anything. It's a non-random sample of a statistically insignificant size lacking in experimental control.

No scientific experiment will ever prove that it is impossible for a person to defend oneself with a gun, because a simple proof by contradiction already exists for that false claim: a person is capable of pulling a trigger, the bullet is capable of killing the assailant, therefore a person is capable of defending oneself, period.

It seems that your argument can be surmised as, "I saw this one demonstration with a couple people who pretended to be in a shootout, and the one person got shot, therefore nobody else in the world is capable of defending themselves and should not have the right to even try, regardless of who that person may be and how much experience they might have...and if you disagree with me, then you don't believe in science."
 
  • #44
I see that people are concerned about accidental shootings by those defending themselves if there was a shooter in a public area. To be scientific, we should look at instances people were accidentally shot in these circumstances and compare them to situations where a purp was actually subdued and/or prevented from carrying out his plans because of an armed citizen. I can't seem to find any references of accidental shootings under these circumstances. But I can provide info to where individuals were able to defend themselves both in their home and in public without harm to bystanders.

One of a few places online that posts encounters gun owners have had:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
 
  • #45
Actually, I take that back, there was an innocent bystander shot in one of those accounts. A store clerk was in the process of being robbed and was able to shoot the robber but also wounded a bystander.
 
  • #47
What if owning and driving a car were a fundamental, Constitutional, human right?
 
  • #48
Loren Booda said:
What if owning and driving a car were a fundamental, Constitutional, human right?

? What's the relation to this thread?

We do have a Constitutional right to interstate travel (tenth amendment I beleve), the right to personal property (14th Amendment). ??
 
  • #49
cristo said:
If someone is a part time student and an active member of a swat team, then sure, let him carry a gun. But this is an anomaly, and thus not worth considering.

It's not really an anomoly because the majority of people, who aren't prepared to use a gun, don't own a gun. The people who would likely take advantage of this kind of law are people who already have an enthusiasm in guns and defense -- and on average would all be significantly more experienced than a kid who owned an airsoft gun, or another kid who had spent a few days at the range.

Drankin, thanks for that link..interesting read
 
  • #50
drankin said:
? What's the relation to this thread?

We do have a Constitutional right to interstate travel (tenth amendment I beleve), the right to personal property (14th Amendment). ??
Both guns and cars kill tens of thousands each year in the US, but nobody claims any other mechanical, deadly contrivance than a gun to be Constitutionally protected. I think target shooting is great, and have eaten hunted game, but that possession of guns should be regulated, not misinterpreted as a right.
 
  • #51
Evidently things start in the earlier education in Alaska. Like middle school. Maybe they do need to carry?
Moose death at Valley school prompts criticism, questions

TAUNTED: Biologists are unsure if students' actions were the cause.

WASILLA -- Though no one knows what killed a yearling moose found dead outside Colony Middle School on Monday, two students stand accused of contributing to its death by taunting the animal after finding it on school grounds during a physical education class, according to Alaska State Troopers and school officials.

After allegedly being harassed by the students, the moose became frightened, rammed itself into a fence outside the school near Palmer, and then died, according to troopers.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/moose/story/769431.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
  • #53
LowlyPion said:
Evidently things start in the earlier education in Alaska. Like middle school. Maybe they do need to carry?

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/moose/story/769431.html

Help us out here LP. Middle school students should carry? Or people in AK should carry because of the moose roaming the streets (which they do)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
Loren Booda said:
Both guns and cars kill tens of thousands each year in the US, but nobody claims any other mechanical, deadly contrivance than a gun to be Constitutionally protected. I think target shooting is great, and have eaten hunted game, but that possession of guns should be regulated, not misinterpreted as a right.

As far as gov't regulation in public, I could agree if the gov't provided the training without restriction to any citizen that can lawfully own a firearm. I think the government should seriously get involved in training everyone. This would be a good oportunity for our gov't to regulate through education. People are going to be armed anyway, wouldn't it be better for public safety if our government participated and had a say in the training? I think it would be a win/win for everyone.
 
  • #55
rootX said:
Sorry I might have missed but last time you were assuming this. Can you prove that they are looking for power and control? I think it would be far easier to tackle the problem if we know what is causing it.

Social ties are enhanced by community support for teen
accomplishments in sports, a subculture from which shooters
are permanently estranged. That marginality reinforces
the sense of social failure that surrounds the shooter at
school. He has no refuge, particularly since the very stability
of the community ensures that his exclusion is permanent.
Few young people leave to go to college or seek adventure.
The very rootedness of the community converts the ordinary
experience of the social misfit (common to lots of American
“geeks”) into a life sentence.
School shooters do not act spontaneously. They plan
their actions months in advance and announce their intentions
repeatedly to peers, though often in ways so veiled
that what they were trying to communicate becomes clear
only after the event. They virtually never send those signals
to adults; the message is confined to peers. Shooters are
rarely “troublemakers,” and generally escape the kind of
surveillance applied to disruptive kids. Indeed, it was not
unusual for adults to regard the perpetrators as exceptionally
well behaved.
Peers see them differently. Their classmates may know
school shooters as belligerent bullies, wimpy victims of bullying,
or both. They are masters at “code switching” and
display different personality characteristics to different audiences,
making it harder for adults to detect them. Their
classmates are rarely surprised to discover that they are the
perpetrators, though, because they have heard the veiled
threats and witnessed various forms of mildly pathological
behavior.
What are school shooters trying to prove? First, they are
searching for a way to retire their public image as dweebs
and misfits, exchanging it for something more alluring: the
dangerous, violent man. They are not loners, but losers who
experience constant rejection as they attempt to find their
way into peer groups. Nothing works. But when they start
talking about shooting people, they get the attention they
were looking for. In a classic case of escalating commitment,
shooters find themselves boxed into
doing the deed because to retreat
from it is to fail one more time, very
publicly.
http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/Spring07ContextsFeature.pdf

Can you think of many other reasons than power issues that a person might suddenly decide to start shoot random unarmed persons?

Revenge? A power and control issue.

A desire to get attention? Through power and control apparently.

A feeling of helplessness and ones life spiraling out of control? pretty obvious there.

The mere desire to see people die? Why do it ones self and so publicly unless there are control issues there aswell?

While there may be vague and mysterious aspects to the phenomenon I think this one is not so mysterious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
drankin said:
As far as gov't regulation in public, I could agree if the gov't provided the training without restriction to any citizen that can lawfully own a firearm. I think the government should seriously get involved in training everyone. This would be a good oportunity for our gov't to regulate through education. People are going to be armed anyway, wouldn't it be better for public safety if our government participated and had a say in the training? I think it would be a win/win for everyone.

I believe that both the state and fed do offer training. One merely has to sign up and do ones service to the state and/or country in return. ;-)
 
  • #57
Perhaps the training requirements should be increased to the level of preparedness that law enforcement officers are expected to maintain? I'm not sure if they should be government funded or not, there are arguments for both sides. drankin you surprise me when you say the gov't should pay for firearms training for everyone, where would the money for such programs come from? You have the right to firearms in the US, but the government doesn't pay for them, why should they pay for the training?

Required attendance at least once/month (or once per week, or whatever is required to maintain the skills) in order maintain your carry permit (I see no real reason that universities should be at all special in this respect)? If this is what it takes to ensure public safety from people "defending" themselves, then I'd say it's a good thing. It would have the added benefit that people trying to defend themselves might actually have a chance of doing so (unlike the poor children who were turned into swiss cheese in Moonbear's video). Maybe even have a sufficiently challenging test at each of the training sessions, which must be passed in order to maintain your permit.

So let's see:
Little/No training (the current system): Higher chance of innocent bystanders injured, lower chance of person successfully defending themselves.
Lots of training, with regular sessions to keep the reflexes up: Lower chance of innocents injured, higher chance of successfully defending themselves.

The only downside is the cost.
 
  • #58
TheStatutoryApe said:
I believe that both the state and fed do offer training. One merely has to sign up and do ones service to the state and/or country in return. ;-)

That is not adequate training for civilian life. I'm talking about proactive comprehensive training programs. Not simple weekend classes. They could have different levels of concealment permits and allow people to carry in what is currently "gun free zones" provided they have the required level of certification. It would make those who are gun sensitive feel more at ease knowing that private citizens who are carrying around them are adequately trained and certified even to a level comparable to law enforcement. I've never heard of this level of government involvement but it would address the concerns of gun owners in that their rights are being respected and the concerns of the general public that those who do carry are competent.
 
  • #59
NeoDevin said:
Perhaps the training requirements should be increased to the level of preparedness that law enforcement officers are expected to maintain? I'm not sure if they should be government funded or not, there are arguments for both sides. drankin you surprise me when you say the gov't should pay for firearms training for everyone, where would the money for such programs come from? You have the right to firearms in the US, but the government doesn't pay for them, why should they pay for the training?

Required attendance at least once/month (or once per week, or whatever is required to maintain the skills) in order maintain your carry permit (I see no real reason that universities should be at all special in this respect)? If this is what it takes to ensure public safety from people "defending" themselves, then I'd say it's a good thing. It would have the added benefit that people trying to defend themselves might actually have a chance of doing so (unlike the poor children who were turned into swiss cheese in Moonbear's video). Maybe even have a sufficiently challenging test at each of the training sessions, which must be passed in order to maintain your permit.

So let's see:
Little/No training (the current system): Higher chance of innocent bystanders injured, lower chance of person successfully defending themselves.
Lots of training, with regular sessions to keep the reflexes up: Lower chance of innocents injured, higher chance of successfully defending themselves.

The only downside is the cost.

Yep, you see where I'm going with the idea. As far as cost, I think it should be at least be partially funded by the public since it is a public safety issue that is being addressed. Basically, if it is the desire of the people that the governemnt should regulate firearms and at the same time respecting the rights of gun owners, this is how it could be done in a practical manner.

Hardcore gun rights folks would probably outright reject the idea. The NRA, however, would probably entertain it with the idea that it would keep their lobby in politics. Or it could make the NRA obsolete. I support the NRA right now because I feel like I have to. I'd rather not have to.
 
  • #60
drankin said:
Yep, you see where I'm going with the idea.

I think you and I are on the same page here (who would have ever thought that would happen?). If we trust the police to respond in these situations, then simply make sure that anyone else who would be responding has a similar level of training. It's not a terribly complicated concept. I don't suppose anyone has estimates of what the actual costs of implementing such a training program would be, per person?