By
Erinn Unger
February 15, 2008
A man opened fire on a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University (NIU) yesterday, shooting 21 people and killing 5 of them before turning the gun on himself.
The shooting hit close to home for at least one UW student.
Meg Zabielski, a graduate student in the College of Education, is from Illinois. A large portion of her high school graduating class attended NIU, a public university like the UW.
“I’m kind of freaked out right now,” she said. “You can’t lock the doors of a university. … Being a public institution and being a part of the community is a catch-22.”
Because there are so many people in one place, she said, a university is a natural magnet for crime.
However, when crime really does happen on your campus the threat becomes real, Zabielski said, citing the incident in January in which a UW student was assaulted while moving her vehicle.
“That could have been me parking my car,” she said.
The gunman at NIU was not a student, according to CNN.com.
“It’s really scary, but what’s most scary is that I don’t know if there’s a solution,” she said, referring to how difficult it is to discern those who may commit violent crimes. “Who’s the bad guy?”
Nikia Fenlin, a senior in dance and anthropology, echoed Zabielski’s concerns.
“That’s scary considering someone can just walk in,” she said. “It disrupts the safe feeling of college campuses.”
Steffani Bennett, a sophomore in art history, feels safe on campus despite the NIU shooting and reports of crime around the UW.
“The UW has various [security] measures in place,” she said. “I feel much safer on campus than in the city in general.”
UW officials have responded to campus safety issues in various ways, but concede that violence, especially in a metropolitan area like Seattle, is inevitable.
“Unfortunately, [the NIU shooting] is a reminder that we live in a violent world,” said Ralph Robinson, UWPD assistant police chief. “We’ve done a lot of the things in light of the Virginia Tech shootings [and incidents last year]. … I’m not sure if I see a need for more [security.]”
Denise Xue, a sophomore from New York City, thinks there is a need for more security. The NYPD would often patrol outside her high school.
“I’m used to seeing more security,” she said. “There’s no security guards on campus [at the UW].”
Another improvement to security on campus would be adding lights, she said.
“In Red Square it’s so big and it gets so dark,” she said. “We need more lights on campus. I don’t feel safe.”
[Reach reporter Erinn Unger at news@thedaily.washington.edu.]
17 Comments
#1 John Hardin
on February 15, 2008 at 6:27 a.m.(Everett, WA | Unverified Name)
How about allowing students and faculty to *defend themselves* against suicidal glory hounds with guns? The "security measures" in place at NIU obviously didn't noticeably hinder Thursday's maniac, and it was all over in less than two minutes - barely enough time for the 911 operator to learn what's happening and where, much less enough time for the police to respond.
“Who’s the bad guy?” The guy who was shooting innocent people! What kind of silliness makes a question like this even possible?
And as for those who *may* commit a violent crime: the population of licensed concealed-carry holders is statistically much less likely to commit a crime of violence than the population at large. The numbers even suggest they are less likely to commit a crime of violence than law enforcement officers. Don't fear the CPL holder, he (or she!) is not a danger to innocent bystanders.
“It disrupts the safe feeling of college campuses.” Sorry that you've had your illusions shattered by reality. The real world is not a safe place. You have to be prepared to defend yourself - assuming the powers-that-be will even deign to let you.
#2 Andrew Brown
on February 15, 2008 at 7:53 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
I'm glad to see that the gun free zone stopped a criminal from breaking the law.
Oh, wait.
#3 Troy
on February 15, 2008 at 10:10 a.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
Gun Free Zones Don't Work. People have a right to defend themselves.
#4 Trip Volpe
on February 15, 2008 at 12:12 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
From the article: "UW officials have responded to campus safety issues in various ways, but concede that violence, especially in a metropolitan area like Seattle, is inevitable."
This is sad, but, I think, true. There will always be those who are willing to bring harm to others for whatever reason, and we can't lock down campus like a prison just because we fear the occasional attack. There are some small measures that can help, like more lights in Red Square (don't overdo it, though; I like the ambiance!), but ultimately we are all vulnerable to the crazy guy who decides to take out his mental issues on his peers.
And this is why self-defense is so important. The police cannot protect you from violent crime, nor is it their duty to do so; the only people capable of reacting to such an assault before it is concluded are those immediately on the scene.
Forbidding responsible, licensed students from carrying defensive weapons on campus is sheer lunacy.
#5 Christa
on February 15, 2008 at 12:27 p.m.(Cerritos, CA | Unverified Name)
I think that the problem is not so much the guns, though, obviously, they played a role. But I think that the problem encompasses an entire ideology of the United States, how we are raised, our over-indulgence for instant gratification, the fast-paced nature of our society, and the lonliness which accompanies the efficiency of modern-day technology (i.e. most jobs require a cubicle with a computer) I don't know much about the shooter, but I can guess that he was probably lonely.
I don't think that heightening security measures (in most cases) does anything more than heighten fear. And fear is a gateway emotion, leading to anger, prejudice, isolation, or retribution.
#6 John Hardin
on February 15, 2008 at 12:45 p.m.(Lynnwood, WA | Unverified Name)
Christa: don't forget our propensity to over-medicate and inappropriately medicate. The shooter was apparently off his meds. Whether his normal unmedicated mental state was a contributing factor, or rebound from the meds was a contributing factor, remains to be seen.
#7 Poppyfields
on February 16, 2008 at 8:10 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
“I’m used to seeing more security,” she said. “There’s no security guards on campus [at the UW].”
UW Police are on campus often, but in their car. We don't need that,we need them to do foot patrol around campus.
It is hard to avoid such events. I don't think you can random stop and search on people.
#8 John Hardin
on February 16, 2008 at 9:15 a.m.(Everett, WA | Unverified Name)
> I don't think you can random stop
> and search on people.
You can't. Read the 4th Amendment.
#9 Theo Penne
on February 16, 2008 at 11:49 a.m.(Chicago, IL | Unverified Name)
Okay, so the American people want to allow its citizens to the have the right to bear arms.
However, what about the need to bear arms? Maybe you have the right, but you have to show a need.
What was his need to have guns? And why so many?
Home defense? He didn't own a home. Handguns should only be sold to homeowners, and only one gun not three or four.
Hunting? Guns should be limited to single-shot rifles.
What about medical checks as well as back ground checks? In this instance as well as in the Virginia Tech shootings the perpetrator had mental health issues.
#10 Trip Volpe
on February 16, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Thoe Penne, you're simply incorrect.
There is no requirement for anybody to show any "need" to do anything that they have a right to do. Do you have to demonstrate "need" to the government before being allowed to choose a religion? Were you required to demonstrate "need" before being allowed to post that comment?
People have a right to keep and bear arms (affirmed by the federal constitution and the Washington State constitution in Article I section 24). They may do so whether they have a need or not, although I must point out that the overriding "need" for firearms ownership is explained in the Second Amendment.
There's nothing unusual about owning multiple guns; I myself own four (two handguns, a shotgun, and a rifle), and I would have many more if they weren't so darned expensive. :-)
#11 John Hardin
on February 16, 2008 at 4:34 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Theo:
Need? Why does "need" enter into it in the first place? Do you truly wish to live in a society where the only things you are permitted to have are those things which the government decides you "need" to have? That is not freedom. That is anathema to the most fundamental principles upon which this country was founded: individual liberty and limited government.
A Right is something you do not have to ask permission to do. You do not have to show a "need" to exercise a Right. As soon as you must ask permission - as soon as you must prove "need" - it is no longer a Right.
Apply your logic to the other rights protected by the Constitution. How would you feel if the government said you must prove a "need" to speak out in protest before you were permitted to do so? How would you feel if you were required to show you "needed" to worship your deity your way before you were permitted to do so? How would you feel if you had to convince the police you "need" privacy before you could tell them to stay out of your affairs without a warrant issued on probable cause that a crime had been committed?
And who gets to define what standard of "need" you must meet in order to exercise your "right"? What if the person or committee that makes that decision is of the opinion that there is *no* situation which justifies a private citizen owning and bearing a firearm?
As for owning more than one gun... Different guns serve different purposes - the are not a "one size fits all" proposition. A shotgun is very well suited to self-defense in the home, but is awkward to carry on your person for self-defense away from home. Pistols are well-suited for personal self-defense; they are small enough and light enough that carrying one all day isn't clumsily awkward or overly fatiguing. A rifle allows effective self-defense at greater range than either a shotgun or pistol - and before you say "nobody needs a rifle for self defense", consider the people in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, who had to defend their homes and neighborhoods against roving gangs of looters. Consider the chaos that will reign in the urban and suburban areas of the Puget sound if we get hit with a magnitude 7 or 8 earthquake - do you think we won't have roving gangs of looters if that happens?
And this doesn't even consider the specialized firearms used for high-end target shooting.
Multiply that by the fact that different calibers that are suitable for different purposes and one person can easily end up owning half a dozen firearms, if not more.
As for mental health issues: if someone is so mentally unstable that they present a danger to public safety and can't be permitted to possess a firearm, why are they permitted to roam freely in the first place?
#12 Brian Y
on February 17, 2008 at 10:16 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Are you kidding me? More lights would make you feel safe? This is a joke. If Students are LEGAL CPL holders, they should be able to carry on campus if they chose. Why is it, that as a student with a CPL I can legally carry and protect myself almost everywhere in WA, but once I set foot onto campus, I must give up this right. Where is the logic behind this? The logic must show at the VT and NIU shootings "Gun Free Zones." Heres a hint, criminals don't follow the rules.
I'm suppose to put my life in the hand of UW PD? I'm sure at any given time, there are no more then 10-20 officers on campus. UW has 40K + students. Do the math. 1 UWPD for every 4,000 students. Now, how long does it take to walk from say Red Square to Foster Lib? 10 minutes or so right? By the time UWPD shows up, the crime is over, people are dead. What good is UWPD then? How is UWPD going to "protect" us?
To Comment #9,
I guessing that you believe that the police are required to protect you. But if you look it up, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that police are not required to protect YOU (an idividual), but rather, they are only required to protect society. Thus, we have a NEED to protect ourselves. YOU, can rely upon the "police" to help you. I, will rely upon myself for my protection.
Regards,
Brian Y
UW Busn Student
NRA Member
WA CPL Holder
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - UW Leader
#13 Jacob
on February 20, 2008 at 2:16 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Violence begets violence begets violence...
#14 Trip Volpe
on February 27, 2008 at 2:27 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
That's easy to say, but frankly, I wouldn't be too worried about whether violence begets violence if it's me staring down the barrel of a gun. My only concern would be whether more violence could get me out of the situation alive.
#15 GWBH
on March 3, 2008 at 8:14 a.m.(Louisville, KY | Unverified Name)
"Violence begets violence begets violence..."
C'mon America - wake up - we don't live in John Lennon's "Imagine" out of 1960's utopia.
We live in a violent world and you'd better come to the reality of that fact.
If you don't take your defense or the defense of your family seriously, just keep on dreaming about Camelot and maybe you might make it there some day.
As for me, I will bear arms and be ready to defend myself should the need ever arise. No one who carries a firearm wants to use it in self defense. That choice will be left up to the criminal who perpetuates the situation into a "no alternative".
#16 Michael
on March 3, 2008 at 9:49 a.m.(Dekalb, IL | Unverified Name)
Greater Gun Control is not the answer. This was planned out well in advance.
An armed student body is not the answer either. This was over in 100 seconds! One or two unprepared students in the crowd may not have changed the outcome greatly.
What kind of environment is that for learning when your packing heat for protection?
My greatest fear is that a small number of armed students bring guns to school for the next year and violence is escalated due to fear.
Steve didn't appear to be capable of such violence until the end of his life. He was a quiet student that seemed to want to help people in corrections.
Michael
www.niuneedsanswers.com
#17 John Hardin
on March 3, 2008 at 11:18 a.m.(Lynnwood, WA | Unverified Name)
> What kind of environment is that for learning
> when your {sic} packing heat for protection?
One where you know you won't be helpless and at the mercy of some homicidal nutcase. I know it would grant *me* peace of mind.
> My greatest fear is that a small number of armed
> students bring guns to school for the next year
> and violence is escalated due to fear.
That fear is unfounded and is not supported by facts. For example, the University of Utah has had students carrying concealed for several years now, and there have been no problems.
Every time expansion of concealed carry and related self-defense freedoms (such as the castle doctrine) are proposed, there is great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the supposedly inevitable "blood in the streets", "shootouts over minor traffic accidents", and "carnage in the classrooms". Yet this never comes to pass.
Michael, your greatest fear should be of being trapped in a classroom by a suicidal glory hound with nobody around who is willing or able to act in self defense. Ask yourself: if that happens are you going to cower in fear? Or are you going to use whatever tools you have at hand - a chair or a desk or a backpack filled with books - to defend your life? If the latter, shouldn't the single most effective tool for self defense also be an option?
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.