Spring Break
Shooting more than just ego
Stephanie Fu
Issue date: 4/21/09 Section: Opinion
Last week, there was a special on ABC's "20/20" about an experiment that was done on a high school to investigate how school shootings, like Columbine, could be avoided with the possible solution of providing one capable student with a gun. The experiment featured several students who volunteered, claiming they would have been useful in a school shooting to save lives "If only I had a gun," which also served as the name of the segment. Although the students practiced and were shown how to properly use a handgun in a stimulated environment with guns loaded and paintballs to show where bullets would have hit, all the trained students failed to stop the shooter.
Some of the trained students were hit on their helmets within seconds; one student made a mistake of standing up directly in front of the shooter to get a "straight shot," but was of course hit several times. Another student could not even get the gun out of his pocket throughout the entire scene. The police officers in the experiment were explaining that adrenaline and stress makes the physical body react differently in a scenario such as a school shooting. Police officers are trained to be able to deal with adrenaline rushes as well as ensuring the safety of others in the room while trying to stop the shooter.
This whole issue reminded me of what it takes to be able to carry a gun in the first place -- and the weak restrictions of obtaining one. All it takes to be able to carry a gun is some paperwork to convince the government that you know how to "handle" a gun.
I do not think that these stipulations should be so easy.
The students that participated in this study thought prior to the experience that they would be perfectly capable of handling themselves and could even stop the source of the threat. Although these ideas are noble and courageous, they lacked any experience and were rather na've. In reality, they could not do anything and ended up harming themselves and others.
Some of the trained students were hit on their helmets within seconds; one student made a mistake of standing up directly in front of the shooter to get a "straight shot," but was of course hit several times. Another student could not even get the gun out of his pocket throughout the entire scene. The police officers in the experiment were explaining that adrenaline and stress makes the physical body react differently in a scenario such as a school shooting. Police officers are trained to be able to deal with adrenaline rushes as well as ensuring the safety of others in the room while trying to stop the shooter.
This whole issue reminded me of what it takes to be able to carry a gun in the first place -- and the weak restrictions of obtaining one. All it takes to be able to carry a gun is some paperwork to convince the government that you know how to "handle" a gun.
I do not think that these stipulations should be so easy.
The students that participated in this study thought prior to the experience that they would be perfectly capable of handling themselves and could even stop the source of the threat. Although these ideas are noble and courageous, they lacked any experience and were rather na've. In reality, they could not do anything and ended up harming themselves and others.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 15
John Byrnes
posted 4/21/09 @ 10:46 AM EST
Research has determined that from the Moment of Commitment (the point when a student pulls their weapon) to the Moment of Completion (when the last round is fired) is only 5 seconds. (Continued…)
johnbyrnes
John Byrnes
posted 4/21/09 @ 10:50 AM EST
Research has determined that from the Moment of Commitment (the point when a student pulls their weapon) to the Moment of Completion (when the last round is fired) is only 5 seconds. (Continued…)
Todd
posted 4/21/09 @ 3:04 PM EST
yeah, a 20/20 "experiment" that "trained' their students
"Although the students practiced and were shown how to properly use a handgun in a stimulated environment with guns loaded and paintballs to show where bullets would have hit"--good training, right? training to shoot takes months or years. (Continued…)
John Byrnes
posted 4/21/09 @ 5:38 PM EST
Yes, Todd, I have and believe in concealed weapons permits, however, when campus police arrive at the scene of an active shooting and find three different individuals with weapons, who do they shoot first? The old days of "contain and negotiate" are gone. (Continued…)
Brad
posted 4/21/09 @ 6:26 PM EST
That so called experiment is not even credible. A trained professional against a student with virtually no experience sitting in the same spot every time so the "gunman" knew exactly who had a gun. (Continued…)
1636
posted 4/21/09 @ 9:45 PM EST
Your editorial goal for the next issue of the East Carolinian should be to write an op-ed that deals with something other than trite, commonplace subjects (self-defense, sleep, food, etc. (Continued…)
James Mathis
posted 4/22/09 @ 12:24 AM EST
I am working on a letter to the editor as we speak. Maybe they will actually print this one. I will be basically highlighting what many of you pro-CCW students have said. (Continued…)
Ryan Smith
posted 4/22/09 @ 8:56 AM EST
CCW Permit holders have taken a 11 hour class that includes performance based shooting on targets. The story would have only be creditable if it had people pass a shotting test first. (Continued…)
Bill
posted 4/22/09 @ 12:10 PM EST
If they had the student come into the room as the gunman and the trained professional sitting in the class - think the result would have been different? DUH
What would the result be if they sent a gunman into the class room and no student was armed? Oh I guess the VT tragedy already answered than question. (Continued…)
Jennifer
posted 4/22/09 @ 4:42 PM EST
What you all are failing to grasp is that the experiment was done with High School aged students so the CCW argument should not even come up. High school students can't carry concealed weapons so it doesn't matter. (Continued…)
Post a Comment