UAA students rally for right to carry guns

  • Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date
  • Tags
    students
In summary: I think it was "Nova" or "The Daily Show".In summary, the students at UAA feel like they are first responders, as police stand-ins, and that they need the right to carry firearms on campus in order to protect themselves. The concept has been brought up on news shows before, with the results being that even in controlled situations with known ammunition, the participants tended to shoot indiscriminately at the "shooter."
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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?
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top