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.
  • #61
drankin said:
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.

If the government is going to give comprehensive training in firearms to whom ever wants it then I think that service in the state or US military is a near perfect requirement. The citizen is giving back for what they are receiving and the institutions will hopefully make sure that the individual is stable responsible and disciplined.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
TheStatutoryApe said:
If the government is going to give comprehensive training in firearms to whom ever wants it then I think that service in the state or US military is a near perfect requirement. The citizen is giving back for what they are receiving and the institutions will hopefully make sure that the individual is stable responsible and disciplined.

The problem is that military training is not enough. It must be ongoing training with frequent refreshers in order to be of use. Mandatory military service would be about the equivalent of a training program required to obtain a carry permit, but no follow up training. Unless you're suggesting that everyone be a permanent member of the reserves or something?
 
  • #63
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.."



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.



I can't imagine anyone fighting against a government with a gun... and winning!

I still have a good shot at killing some of them.

You need something.
 
  • #64
junglebeast said:
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.

I'm not saying that things have been unquestionably proven, but you just seem to be brushing the findings away since you choose to think something different.

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."

And yours is summarised as this: "I saw a demonstration showing that out of a group of students in a shootout, not one of them managed to make any difference to the situation. I then listen to a trained expert advising why this was the case. However, I'll choose to ignore that, since I clearly know better."

junglebeast said:
It's not really an anomoly because the majority of people, who aren't prepared to use a gun, don't own a gun.

So you are saying that the majority of people who own a weapon are trained to an equivalent level to an active member of a swat team? Please, now you're just trolling.

The people who would likely take advantage of this kind of law are people who already have an enthusiasm in guns and defense --

An "enthusiasm in guns and defence" is not the same as an ability to react in a situation in a manner that is as safe and comparable to that of a firearms officer.
 
  • #65
I grew up with the military. Being in the military alone does not mean you are proficient with a firearm. It means you know how to load an M16 and hit spray bullets at a target at least (boot camp). Not exactly firearms training for civilian life. Pistols are not standard issue for GI's even in combat zones. And a good portion of the military is to support combat soldiers and are not issued combat weapons. It's apples and oranges IMO.
 
  • #66
NeoDevin said:
Perhaps the training requirements should be increased to the level of preparedness that law enforcement officers are expected to maintain?
NeoDevin said:
The problem is that military training is not enough. It must be ongoing training with frequent refreshers in order to be of use. Mandatory military service would be about the equivalent of a training program required to obtain a carry permit, but no follow up training. Unless you're suggesting that everyone be a permanent member of the reserves or something?
What is the likelihood that any person is going to find themselves in a situation as simulated in the video (forgoing any of my previous arguements against the realism of it)?
Police require the training that they do because it is their job to enter into dangerous situations where they and others may be harmed. It is not the job of any person with a concealed gun permit to "go get the bad guys" or in any way put themselves in harms way. A concealed gun permit allows a person to protect their own life with the use of their own personal firearm if the situation arises that the police can not. The ability to do the job of a police officer is not required for this and even their training is likely to come up short on how to deal with crazed gun men busting through a door while they doodle in a note book. I would bet money that any police officer ran through the same simulation in that video would fail at least almost as miserably. There are currently plenty of people out there with concealed carry permits and I do not remember ever hearing of any of them who did not have the sufficient training and skill to protect themselves with a reasonable level of aptitude. If you know of any please let me know.
Here's a funny article..
http://www.ralphdsherman.com/Pressarchive/2003-02-18 Hartford Courant.htm
The recent accidental discharge of a handgun at the Bushnell theater has made some Connecticut residents angry about the lawful presence of handguns in theaters. Typically these residents don’t support the ownership or carry of firearms anywhere, not just in theaters.

But the incident has also angered many civilians who hold permits to carry handguns - because the incident revealed a repugnant double standard.

If the handgun that discharged in the theater had belonged to a private citizen, he would have been charged with reckless endangerment, breach of peace, and unlawful discharge of a firearm. He could face a total maximum sentence of 21 months in jail and $3,250 in fines. And his handgun permit would have been revoked by the State Police.

I know because I’ve represented a number of private citizens who have been arrested in the same type of situation. In some cases the concealed handgun didn’t even fire; it was merely exposed inadvertently.

No charges have been filed in this case, however. The gun owner was a police officer.
Edit: Mind I am not a gun owner and am not even much of a gun supporter. I have conflicting feelings on the topic. I still don't even think that guns on campus is likely a very good idea. I would just like to read better arguements.

drankin said:
I grew up with the military. Being in the military alone does not mean you are proficient with a firearm. It means you know how to load an M16 and hit spray bullets at a target at least (boot camp). Not exactly firearms training for civilian life. Pistols are not standard issue for GI's even in combat zones. And a good portion of the military is to support combat soldiers and are not issued combat weapons. It's apples and oranges IMO.
And perhaps that could be changed?
A friend of mine was a navy corpsman and received basic training for a handgun. Why that isn't common I do not know.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
It's not common because a handgun is not standard military issue for soldiers. And why would that be changed? For civilian life after the military? That's not the purpose of military service.

Yes, it certainly pisses off those of us who carry concealed when idiots accidently discharge a firearm in public (a pistol should never be removed from a properly designed holster while in public). I've read of a few accounts of it happening. I attribute it to a lack of training which brings me back to my point the gov't, whether it be local, state, or federal should get involved more proactively in training.
 
  • #69
cristo said:
So you are saying that the majority of people who own a weapon are trained to an equivalent level to an active member of a swat team? Please, now you're just trolling.

Did I say swat team? The fact is that none of the people in this news game were people who carry concealed weapons. Therefore, the results of the experiment cannot be extended to make any assumptions about the abilities of people who carry concealed weapons on a daily basis, and those are the only people who this proposed legislature would be relevant to. It's not as if we are talking about the university including the cost of a complimentary G18C into the admissions cost and then handing them out to all freshmen like iPods.
 
  • #70
TheStatutoryApe said:
What is the likelihood that any person is going to find themselves in a situation as simulated in the video

Either they need guns to protect themselves (in all situations, not just the ones shown in the videos), in which case they should have sufficient training to ensure public safety, or they don't need guns to protect themselves. If they have the gun, they should be trained. Guns without training is little better than Russian Roulette.
 
  • #71
drankin said:
It's not common because a handgun is not standard military issue for soldiers. And why would that be changed? For civilian life after the military? That's not the purpose of military service.

Yes, it certainly pisses off those of us who carry concealed when idiots accidently discharge a firearm in public (a pistol should never be removed from a properly designed holster while in public). I've read of a few accounts of it happening. I attribute it to a lack of training which brings me back to my point the gov't, whether it be local, state, or federal should get involved more proactively in training.
I believe that training persons for both service and application of that training to life after the military is eminently reasonable.
On the other hand government funding going to any yahoo that feels like learning to use a gun does not seem so reasonable, at least not to me. What all would the government be paying for? Do they pay for the guns? ammo? professional instructors? accessible shoooting ranges? How much would it all cost and what exactly is the value of the return benefit to society? I believe that there are law enforcement training schools that are open to any applicants and receive government funding. Of course they have to pay just like anyone going to any school that receives government funding and increases the number of educated and skilled citizens. You have to pay to get CPR and first aid training. You have to pay for training to become a police officer, sheriff, nurse, EMT, doctor, educator, and any number of other skill sets far more valuable to society in general. Why should training with guns be free?

NeoDevin said:
Either they need guns to protect themselves (in all situations, not just the ones shown in the videos), in which case they should have sufficient training to ensure public safety, or they don't need guns to protect themselves. If they have the gun, they should be trained. Guns without training is little better than Russian Roulette.
I never argued that training should not be required. I only argued the level of training which you seem to believe necessary.
 
  • #72
TheStatutoryApe said:
I believe that training persons for both service and application of that training to life after the military is eminently reasonable.
On the other hand government funding going to any yahoo that feels like learning to use a gun does not seem so reasonable, at least not to me. What all would the government be paying for? Do they pay for the guns? ammo? professional instructors? accessible shoooting ranges? How much would it all cost and what exactly is the value of the return benefit to society? I believe that there are law enforcement training schools that are open to any applicants and receive government funding. Of course they have to pay just like anyone going to any school that receives government funding and increases the number of educated and skilled citizens. You have to pay to get CPR and first aid training. You have to pay for training to become a police officer, sheriff, nurse, EMT, doctor, educator, and any number of other skill sets far more valuable to society in general. Why should training with guns be free?


I never argued that training should not be required. I only argued the level of training which you seem to believe necessary.


As far as who pays for it, that's a different discussion really. My point is that it would be in the interest of public safety if there was a gov't program available that at least provided a baseline training criteria for those who carry in public. Right now there are many high end private training programs available but they are in remote locations:

http://www.thunderranchinc.com/home/index.html"
http://www.gunsite.com/"

One idea might be to provide additional instruction at law enforcement schools for private citizens. And I never suggested that it would be free.

Or, we just keep things the way they are and deal with the fact that many people carry concealed in public with very little training. I believe there is an opportunity for our gov't to get more involved with public safety of gun owners while respecting the their rights to carry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
drankin said:
One idea might be to provide additional instruction at law enforcement schools for private citizens. And I never suggested that it would be free.

How about http://www.taser.com/pages/default.aspx" ? They are about 300$ right now (affordable) and I am expecting them to get better and cheaper. I don't know the gun costs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
rootX said:
How about http://www.taser.com/pages/default.aspx" ? They are about 300$ right now (affordable) and I am expecting them to get better and cheaper. I don't know the gun costs.

You have 1 shot. You have a 25 foot maximum range. You have terrible accuracy. It will only temporarily stun the person, and isn't effective at stopping everyone, and it won't work if they are wearing body armor of any kind. It's large and bulky so it cannot actually be carried concealed. Anyone who's perpetrating a school shooting is going to be using a minimum of 1 semi automatic handgun, if not larger automatic SMG's or assault rifles. In other words it would be useless. Personally, I think you'd have better luck hiding behind a doorway and clobbering the shooter over the head with a rock when he walks by. Also, consider that a used semi automatic handgun of high quality craftsmanship, or a semi-automatic AK47 rifle, could both be picked up for under $300.
 
Last edited by a moderator: