By
Lexie Krell
November 10, 2009
The University District Defenders is a group that plans to arm themselves with concealed weapons in response to U-District crime. After their original Facebook group was removed for a “violation of terms,” it has reformed and is beginning to mobilize.
“I knew that a lot of people were criticizing us and calling us crazy,” said Stanley Luong, the creator of both groups. “I wanted it to be seen as a real organization — a grassroots sort of thing. I kind of think of it as a volunteer militia, so to speak.”
The group, formerly called “U-District Vigilantes,” plans to host its first meeting this Sunday. More than 40 people have joined the group on Facebook, Luong said, and roughly 10 people have expressed interest in attending the first meeting. Several people have offered to do patrols with him, but Luong said that no live shooting would occur at the first gathering.
“We’re just going to go over our goals and values — what everyone thinks about this,” Luong said. “It may be another month or two before everyone is fully trained and prepared.”
Richard Walker, a National Rifle Association and Washington Hunter Education Program certified instructor, contacted Luong to offer free training services to the group. The organization has yet to find a location for the training but plans to schedule an event in the future.
“Partially, it’s a question of how to be responsible with gun ownership and how to safely and effectively do self-defense and home-defense,” Walker said. “I want to make sure that everyone there understands their rights and the responsibility that goes along with it.”
Luong said he would like everyone in the group to receive training and has not yet taken any classes himself.
“It will give them more confidence in knowing when and when not to step in when they perceive a problem and knowing how not to have their gun turned back on them and other general safety guidelines,” Luong said.
Jerome Solomon, public information officer for the UW Police Department, said that students should call 911 if they see something suspicious and tell officers if they are carrying a concealed weapon with the proper paperwork when stopped by police.
“True enough, we can’t be there instantaneously, but I think our response time is pretty good,” Solomon said. “We wouldn’t want innocent people to get hurt unnecessarily, and the chances of that happening if other citizens are armed is increased.”
Solomon said that increased notification of crime may contribute to students feeling the need for self-defense.
“There are many more outlets where you can get the news now, and it can give the perception that there is more crime,” Solomon said. “That could add to the perception that there is a need [for students] to protect themselves if this is going on around them.”
Not all members of the group intend to participate in the patrols. Graduate student Cheryl Lowry does not carry a concealed weapon but joined the Facebook group out of interest and sees the organization as a creative response to crime statistics in the U-District.
“I think it’s more about making a statement than protecting everybody,” Lowry said. “I don’t necessarily see it as a practical solution I guess.”
As the group prepares for its first meeting, details of how often patrols will occur, where the group will meet, and whether or not it will apply to become a registered student organization have yet to be determined, but Luong is encouraged by the organization’s development thus far.
“We’re just taking it day by day,” he said.
Reach reporter Lexie Krell at news@dailyuw.com.
25 Comments
#1 Sean K.
on November 10, 2009 at 12:56 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
The group should at least wear a uniform so that we can can provide plenty of berth while they are on their patrols.
Brown shirts maybe?
#2 Sean
on November 10, 2009 at 1:13 a.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
This group is on a very slippery slope in legal terms if they act with force and they also present a very real public safety complication to both U-District residents and law enforcement. I don't need a group of armed idiots with only a vague understanding of law and weapons use in a violent confrontation (which they themselves may create) to make me feel safer in my neighborhood. They DO NOT make me feel safer.
The fact that some NRA type wants to now be involved is just another in a long line of outsiders coming to the U-District with their own agenda and causing problems for us residents. Outsiders should stay out of this, particularly because they come into it with a political agenda that is about them and not us.
Stanley Luong will be graduating this year and should concentrate on that rather than trying to leave us who will remain in this neighborhood with yet another complex problem that he will leave but we will still have to deal with. Thanks a lot.
#3 K-Romulus
on November 10, 2009 at 5:51 a.m.(Middle River, MD | Unverified Name)
Actually, as a pro-gunowner activistI am glad to see a qualified trainer step up to make sure these guys understand the legal implications and techical requirements of what they are claiming they want to do. I bet they will rethink their approach after hearing the facts. I am glad an "outsider" stepped in, because it is obvious that the "community" didn't have the institutional knowledge needed to educate these guys.
#4 Carl from Chicago
on November 10, 2009 at 6:03 a.m.(Bowling Green, KY | Unverified Name)
Sean said: "...a group of armed idiots..."
Nicely put, Sean. Bigotry and stereotypical thinking at it's finest.
#5 Sean
on November 10, 2009 at 6:28 a.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
You guys didn't hear the local radio interview with this student. It did not go well. In ten years of living here and being on foot in the neighborhood at all hours I am aware of what concerns me and the actual scale of issues here. If I have never personally stumbled upon the commission of any of the street robberies here than what exactly does this young man think the chances are of he and his group coming upon such a scene.
Again, those of us who live here are on the line. Not you. Outsiders have an agenda and it isn't really about the safety of my neighbors here. This student's idea remains a bad response. Inflicting ones gun rights on their community is not the same as adding to the safety of that community.
#6 Thanos
on November 10, 2009 at 11:53 a.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
I find it interesting that all of you (Sean from Denver) think that someone with a gun is a danger. I am legally allowed to carry a concealed pistol in several states and have US military trailing with firearms. I have done patrol with an automatic machine gun over in the great sand box.
Every time I step out of my home with my pistol I become something else, a person who will walk away from someone spitting on me and calling my mom a filthy name. Do you know what you become? Safer.
#7 jarmick
on November 10, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.(UW Campus)
I challenge anyone to tell me why this is a good idea.
This reaction is far from the creative solutions this UW community thrives on.
Get a bunch of young, untrained, scared students together, give them guns, and let them play 'cops and robbers'.
My condolences go out to the families of future innocent by-standers.
#8 Sean
on November 10, 2009 at 12:57 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
Thanos, I understand that someone like you poseeses the training combined with the situational judgement that the responsibilities of having a carry permit truly call for. I thank you and anyone who falls into that catagory for being responsible and carrying some wisdom regarding themselves along with that weapon. I used to shoot, I did freelance photography in the Middle East. I'm not totally ignorant.
I contend though that guns complicate situations and, for too many owners, cloud situational judgement. I agree with the view that for too many owners they are more likely to get into trouble because they are more likely to engage in poor situational judgement because they have the gun to fall back on. I also contend that cases do occur when owners who use force in a public place injure innocent bystanders or (by their own reaction with the gun) initiate a gun fight that causes injury to innocent bystanders.
If by their own statistics, police nationwide only have an 18% hit rate in a handgun contact with an assailant then I am not holding my breath as a bystander for John Q Gun Owner walking down my block and deciding it's time to stop indexing and get down to business.
This neighborhood is three square miles. This is not Detroit. People here often will get involved to assist each other and student groups are increasingly proactive about the kind of skills and awarness staying safe requires. To introduce onto our few streets individuals who are not Thanos kind of guys roaming around with guns only complicates public safety in a small neighborhood and indeed does increase the possibility of injury through gun violence to their neighbors.
I have had to take care of myslef in many places and situations. I do not need this group to navigate the issues of my neighborhood and neiher do most residents here.
#9 THANOS
on November 10, 2009 at 1:34 p.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
If the state of Washington says I can carry a concealed pistol, I really don't think you have any business telling me I shouldn't. The Washington State Constitution says:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
As long as they are obeying the law, it is their "Right" to carry concealed. Just like the right to Free Speech, I am sure that you would not support a person’s speech being restricted.
I would prefer that permit holders take a training class and spend a lot of time at the range. After that they should evaluate if they can live with using deadly force, some people can't and should not put themselves in the position where they may be forced to. They should also be encouraged to avoid the situations to begin with, but that is not always possible.
While the police statistics do have an 18% hit ratio, I know that I have put more rounds down range than the typical cop and training makes you better shot.
I would challenge your anecdotal statement of a gun clouding the situational judgment of a person who has taken the responsibility to get a concealed carry permit. I know a lot of people who have a permit, and not one of them has drawn a gun in anger.
On Fort Hood, Texas the military members are not allowed to carry anything but a service weapon while on duty.
I do not think that you can justify a gun free environment makes people safer. Because when deadly force is attempted by a criminal on a law abiding citizen, the police don't USUALLY need to show up guns drawn, they show up with chalk.
#10 Kevin
on November 10, 2009 at 1:35 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
These guys are walking on thin ice if they ever do use their weapons. It is well documented that they want people to know they carry guns and that they are out hunting for criminals. And anyone who joins their group is an idiot for revealing that they concealed carry. Concealed means concealed! It's supposed to be a secret, and by divulging such information they are compromising the safety of themselves and those around them.
#11 THANOS
on November 10, 2009 at 1:38 p.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Jarmik "I challenge anyone to tell me why this is a good idea."
Fort Hood had highly trained military members that are restricted by law/Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) from carrying a firearm that is not issued. That sure didn't work out very well for them. Had one of them had a gun, it could have spared a lot of pain and death.
Seems like a pretty good idea to me to give them guns.
#12 Kevin
on November 10, 2009 at 1:39 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
That said, this NRA instructor is what this group needs. They need to be educated on the rights and responsibilities of a CPL holder. I hope he drives some sense into them.
#13 Thanos
on November 10, 2009 at 1:46 p.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Kevin "That said, this NRA instructor is what this group needs. They need to be educated on the rights and responsibilities of a CPL holder. I hope he drives some sense into them."
You need to know (or should know) that stuff when you get the concealed carry permit. The people who have them are within the law. I don't know if I would join, and I have some reservations about proclaiming that you are a concealed carry group with the former name "vigilantes" but anyone within their rights, should be able to do what ever they like, we call it freedom.
#14 Bill_F
on November 10, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
While I do not support the ideas of a patrol or vigilantism, I'm also disappointed to see the same tired, emotional rhetoric and baseless arguments being touted out against those who want to protect themselves.
Common arguments are that students are irresponsible, drunken, emotionally unstable, and liable to snap at anytime. These are the same doomsday arguments that were made when Washington state first passed its concealed carry laws. It was said that traffic accidents would turn into murders, arguments would lead to shootings, and bystanders would by injured left and right. That has simply not been the case here or in any of the other 39 states with legal carry, and concealed weapons permit holders are statistically some of the most law abiding citizens out there.
For over four decades now, students in Washington state, like many other residents, have been able to carry firearms for self defense, and there are -extremely- few cases of them causing problems, let alone injuring people. Meanwhile there are thousands of self defense cases every year.
Some will cite that students don't have the experience necessary to carry a firearm, however when they seek training, those involved are labeled as "NRA gun nuts".
Some say this training isn't enough, and go on to point out how much training police receive, and that even they have a low hit rate.
For all their training, when they DO fire their weapons, police are more likely to hit the wrong person than a citizen legally carrying a firearm. To even compare this is unfair to the police however, as they are tasked with responding and assessing situations that they did not themselves witness. Meanwhile, someone on the scene who may have a firearm to protect themselves sees the entire incident unfold. If one is the victim of a violent crime, it is extremely evident and clear cut to them. Defensive gun use is completely different than offensive, which is what the police must often do.
When used in self defense, guns are very rarely actually fired (less than 8% of the time), as the assailant almost always flees.
*broken into two parts for length*
#15 Bill_F
on November 10, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
*part two*
I've heard the argument that "introducing firearms" is simply a bad idea on its face. I don't believe most individuals understand just how many people in the state have concealed weapons permits. I myself know 4 other individuals who carry for defense, and they are on the ave every day. Obviously, there are many others I don't know. According to various sheriff's offices, the rate of permit holders in the state is about 1 in 24. In king county, its about 1 in 30.
One last argument already stated in these comments is that these individuals are unlikely to need to use their weapons anyway. The leaders of this group have -already- been victimized several times, and dealt with lengthy police response on top of it.
To give another example, I myself have used a firearm in defense just off campus. In june of this year I witnessed a particularly violent battery on the Ave. I put some distance between myself and the group, and tried to call the police. After I gave the details, but before the police could respond, one of the individuals saw this and in turn assaulted me. I drew my weapon and yelled a verbal warning, which fortunately cause not only the person sprinting at me, but the rest of the group, to disperse.
I had some correspondence with the Daily over the incident, but they chose not to run he story. Likewise, you will rarely hear stories in the media of individuals defending themselves.
For those interested, there is a chapter of the students for concealed carry on campus at UW.
#16 Russ W.
on November 10, 2009 at 3:06 p.m.(Location Unknown | UW Community)
People who don't like what this guy is doing (and I can see why they'd be nervous, even if I'm not) should suggest an alternative, or they're just engaging in useless grandstanding. What's your idea for reducing crime in the u-district? It isn't going to go away on its own.
#17 Sara
on November 10, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
GUN. CONTROL. NOW.
#18 Bill_F
on November 10, 2009 at 6:09 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
I don't really understand how gun control will prevent any crimes (see any major city in the US), but how could it possibly lower rape, assault, battery, robbery, mugging, or the like?
What it WILL do is forcibly disarm individuals like myself and others who defend themselves with legally carried firearms.
#19 Sean K.
on November 10, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | UW Community)
We already have an alternative Russ! - Prison.
Works pretty good don't you think?
Maybe a job could make a difference for a most (not all, of course). A place to live might be a start.
I am waiting with baited breath for the invisible hand to show up on the Ave. Well, maybe its always been there. :-)
#20 Kevin
on November 10, 2009 at 6:52 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name | UW Community)
Sara, gun control never has worked in reducing crime and it never will. See Washington, D.C., Chicago, the UK and Australia.
#21 Michael
on November 10, 2009 at 8:52 p.m.(Denver, CO | Unverified Name | UW Community)
"Although Washington's law on concealed weapons is fairly detailed, it doesn't cover the responsibilities and potential liabilities that could come with using a gun for self-defense, said Paul Nickle, an instructor at Wade's Eastside Guns and Indoor Range in Bellevue. He teaches a course called "Legal Aspects of Armed Self Defense."
Whether a shooting qualifies legally as self-defense depends on the ability of and opportunity for the attacker to do the potential victim harm and whether the person threatened is in jeopardy, Nickle said. "But it's not just the legal requirements [of shooting a person] that gun owners have to consider," he said. "It's the repercussions — legally, financially, emotionally.
"The first question I'm often asked in class is, 'When is it OK to shoot?' I tell them the question should be, 'How can I avoid having to shoot?' "
Nickle said his students — some new gun owners, some seasoned — often don't realize that just because they might be in the right legally if they shoot in self-defense, they could end up being liable in civil court. His class is designed to fill in some of the gaps in the state's law on self-defense."
Also, the stats are that only 2.4% of King County residents hold concealed carry permits. There are 65,000+ UW staff and students combined and 30,000 U-District residents, of whom some are students or staff. So although someone may know other permit holders the number is by no means a common status of people in the neighborhood.
#22 Ace Cards
on November 11, 2009 at 1:07 a.m.(Gig Harbor, WA | Unverified Name)
While I am as pro-gun as they come I do not think that an inexperienced group undertaking armed patrols is a good idea. As for an idea about what will reduce violent crime in the area I believe that it must be adressed on an induvidual basis. Be responsible for your own safety. Arm yourself if that approach suits you. It is very effective if you have the correct mindset and can handle your weapon. If one chooses not to arm then I would recommend staying off the streets after dark. The 911 system is all but useless as they will likely not arrive in time to assist you. Gun control laws? Absolute absurdity. It is impossible to prevent a criminal from obtaining a weapon thru passage of laws. Why would such a person obey? Also firearms can be constructed by someone of average intellect, with the items that are readily available at most hardware stores. They are crude, dangerouse to the user, but they can also be just as lethal as a carefully constructed firearm. Again, take personal responsibility for ones own physical well being. Well intentioned but inexperienced armed patrols that will not likely be around at the right time or place that violence occurs are not going to be effective against this problem.
#23 Ray
on November 12, 2009 at 9:38 a.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
Ok guys,with all arguments aside, it seems to me that the responsible thing to do now is get a CWP, and just go about my business. Don't tell anyone that I'm carrying, just do it in a quiet law abiding manner, and when the SHTF, defend my self. Everyone really just needs to shut up on the matter. In this case, I'm pro-life (as in my own), and pro-choice (as in the choice to defend myself). Deal with it.
#24 Run and Hide
on November 12, 2009 at 1:43 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I'm a Marine Corps infantry veteran with hundreds, if not thousands of hours of fire arms training. I know that the last thing we need is a bunch of trigger happy, untrained, non-professionals patrolling the area around UW. Have you heard of the Batman Syndrome? You start arming "vigilantes" the crooks come with bigger guns, and more guns. I'm more worried about getting shot by one of these losers than getting mugged. Absolutely ridiculous.
#25 Bill_F
on November 13, 2009 at 12:20 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Here again we have the doomsday scenarios brought up. Despite the extremely low rate of CPL holders committing ANY crimes, let alone violent ones, over the last four decades, somehow this is just a disaster waiting to happen.
If the batman theory held any water, the criminals in Washington would already be armed to the teeth from the last 40+ years of dealing with a society that is free to arm itself.
The same can be said about the "innocent bystander" theory. According to some of these comments, you'd expect to hear about people getting shot every single day by some untrained trigger-happy individual. I challenge you to find even a handful of cases.
And while I appreciate that you have quite a bit of experience handling firearms, Run and Hide, anecdotal evidence is hardly solid. I could easily find a single individual with just as much time teaching firearms handling who would say self defense is a good thing (the instructor mentioned in the article, for instance).
I'm more worried about the muggings that happen three orders of magnitude more frequently.
Post a comment