There’s an interesting discussion at Pharyngula and Uncertain Principles about a high-school physics teacher in California who is in trouble for firing a gun as part of a classroom demonstration. It’s interesting because it opposes two principles to which we bleeding-heart liberal academic types will generally be sympathetic: “guns are dangerous” vs. “teachers should be free to make their classes interesting and exciting.” In the comments it’s very clear that, not only are people disagreeing, but they find folks on the other side to be slightly nutso.
I’m happy to come down on the side of an interesting classroom in this case. Guns can certainly be dangerous, and we have some cultural issues here in the U.S. that cause special problems that most other countries don’t have. It’s far too easy for the wrong people to have guns, especially handguns and assault rifles and other darlings of the NRA. But it goes way too far to extrapolate to the idea that the very concept of a gun is somehow evil, and that the things should be banned entirely.
The teacher, David Lapp, demonstrates the ballistic pendulum experiment each year by shooting a bullet into a block of wood. By measuring the block’s recoil, you can figure out the velocity of the bullet using conservation of momentum. (Or “inertia, velocity and other complex formulae,” as the newspaper article would have it.) Sure, there are ways to do it without using a rifle, but a demonstration like this makes the experiment come alive for a lot of students.
Many commenters in PZ and Chad’s threads are absolutist about the issue, insisting that any appearance of a gun in a classroom is completely insane. But the basic arguments against allowing the gun are pretty simple: either (1) there is a safety risk in having a gun in the classroom, or (2) it sends the wrong message to kids to let them see guns. I think (1) is blown substantially out of proportion. Imagine, in any of these arguments, replacing “gun” with “a dangerous thing.” Should there be an absolute prohibition against every dangerous thing in a classroom? No hazardous chemicals, no driver’s ed, no power tools in shop class? Dangerous things should be handled with care, but that shouldn’t lead to a complete loss of perspective.
The second argument, that simply letting the kids see a gun up close leads to familiarity and it’s a short step from there to Columbine, has it exactly backwards. The reason why American students go to college and engage in frequent binge drinking and other irresponsible behavior isn’t because they are exposed to alcohol too much in high school — it’s because the concept of underage drinking is a taboo that they can’t wait to violate. In other countries where children are allowed to drink in responsible amounts in a respectable context, there isn’t any outlaw romance associated with the concept of getting completely plastered once you escape from your family, and the rampant alcohol abuse that U.S. colleges have to deal with is much less widespread. I’d be very happy if the total number of firearms in American households were dramatically lower than it is, but I’d also be happy if kids were taught basic gun safety, and thought of them as tools to be used properly rather than toys out of movies and comic books.
And if they learn some conservation of momentum and other “complex formulae” in the process, so much the better.
“In other countries where children are allowed to drink in responsible amounts in a respectable context, there isn’t any outlaw romance associated with the concept of getting completely plastered once you escape from your family, and the rampant alcohol abuse that U.S. colleges have to deal with is much less widespread.”
The rest of the post is extremely interesting, but the quote above hits the nail right on the head. Any time I’ve been around undergrads in the US I’ve been amazed at how immature their attitudes are in relation to alcohol. I’m perfectly sure that this isn’t a universal trait there but the sometimes puritanical attitude to alcohol that I’ve seen in the US is obviously a large contributing factor to binge drinking among undergraduates and, sadly, the all too common occurrence of alcohol-related deaths. If I compare the US to, say, Italy, binge drinking is almost non-existent simply because alcohol is demystified to children at a very early age. Sadly, the same thing isn’t true in the US (or in the UK for that matter).
As to the main point of the post, I’m loath to criticise a teacher for devising an interesting and fun way to illustrate a concept. Once everything is above board, and the appropriate safety precautions are taken, I don’t see the difficulty with the experiment. I think it’s obvioiusly the conflation of guns and a classroom environment that’s caused all of the ruckus here; after all, we’ve all done “dangerous” experiments in class (my favourite is of course any conservation of momentum experiment which makes students believe they’re about to be hit in the face with an anvil :-)) without the slightest peep of objection from parents or students.
Dr. Carroll–
I completely agree that actually seeing a gun used in a responsible manner would be a great thing. I was raised with guns in the house, and was taught early on the importance of gun safety, and none of my friends knew as much about them, or were as respectful towards them, as I was. Those who are concerned about kids seeing guns (or drug use or the exploitation of women…) glorified need only listen to popular music, or turn on MTV and watch the videos, or play a game like Grand Theft Auto.
Evil people with guns = bad
Physicists with guns = cool!
Fantastic post. I can respect someone who stands by his beliefs, but too many people (from the NRA to Green Peace) shoot themselves in the foot (no pun intended) by carrying things to an extreme.
I especially loved this comment, “The same lesson can be taught with a bic pen and a spitwad. I am sure students will find this equally inspiring.”
I’ll take a responsible and inspiring teacher with a gun over a zealot any day.
just wanted to chime in and offer myself as another bit of evidence that early responsible exposure to guns is better than treating them as taboo. i was raised in the country and around hunters. consequently as a teenager–typically the most dangerous time to have access to such things–i was far more interested in excercising my independence with alcohol and pot rather than guns!
Hmmm…. I’m pretty sure I remember the same experiment being done sans gun in my highschool.
A gun is a dangerous thing and can without loss of coolness factor or educational benefit be replaced by a not so dangerous thing.
In my view the gun does add anything, but in any event the issue does not seem to be the experiment itself, rather it is the teacher’s failure to notify anybody on his decision to bring a deadly weapon to class in order to increase the entertainment value of his demonstration. Maybe a consultation with the students, parents and/or the principal are in order before you show up armed in a classroom and start shooting.
Why not make the gun yourself with an iron pipe, a ball bearing and a drop of petrol? Much less controversial, and much easier for the kids to copy. My chemistry teacher did this (without the ball bearing as a bullet) to dramatically demonstrate the energy stored in petrol.
You can watch MIT professor Walter Lewin demonstrate the ballistic pendulum with a rifle here.
If you get bored with the explanations at the beginning (Heaven forbid) you can just move to 8 minutes and 20 seconds into the video to see the demo.
It’s interesting to note that after loading and cocking the rifle, he walks forward of the barrel!
“A gun is a dangerous thing and can without loss of coolness factor or educational benefit be replaced by a not so dangerous thing.”
I’d lay really good odds that whatever the gun is replaced with will have had less testing and less safety inspection than a handgun. Typically when you don’t use a gun you use some sort of home made projectile system which in my mind is far less safe. The problem is that those not exposed to guns have been basically indoctrinated that guns are inherently dangerous and so forth. Plus Hollywood has romanticized them in an unfortunate way.
My Dad used to do this experiment back in college for his Freshmen physics class. Really woke up the 8:00 class. Then one year when he was on Sabbatical and couldn’t say anything they had a meeting and banned guns.
In my view the gun does add anything, but in any event the issue does not seem to be the experiment itself, rather it is the teacher’s failure to notify anybody on his decision to bring a deadly weapon to class in order to increase the entertainment value of his demonstration. Maybe a consultation with the students, parents and/or the principal are in order before you show up armed in a classroom and start shooting.
From the article:
“Lapp, who served in the Army from 1977 to 1980, became a teacher in 1986. He said he and the former Tamalpais High principal checked the legality of the experiment when he first started doing it around 1992 and determined that there were no laws against it. It has recently been done with the full written consent of Principal Chris Holleran.”
Doing this experiment is inevitably going to upset some people, so surely it would make sense to find an alternative. Preferably one which the students can play around with themselves. Use velcro darts/bows and arrows, and then everyone can have a go, laugh at those who miss the block completely, and do the calculation to see who threw/fired it fastest. It’s still fun, and though somewhat less dramatic will be as captivating as participation is possible.
Clark – I remember my sister’s reaction to being woken up one morning by my father firing a twelve-bore shotgun out of the dining room window when a pigeon was messing up the garden. Her room was directly above the dining room. If your father’s Freshman physics class were anything like her, they were less than amused!
Thanks Chad, you are a more careful reader than I am, though when read further the legality is still an issue, and the current superintendent was unaware of the experiment.
In general I see no problem with guns or any other “dangerous thing”, as long as issues such as safety and liability are well thought out, by professionals if needed, and some sort of process of consulting with parents is going on. My impression from the article is that these issues were dealt with exclusively by the teacher, with a heavy dose of the “trust me, I was a soldier” approach. As a former soldier myself I am skeptical…
Personally, I prefer the way we used to do it in my school, firing the gun straight into the air and measuring how long it takes to return to the ground. Oh, don’t worry safety police, the teacher always made us wear helmets.
Erc, the difference is they really shouldn’t be sleeping in their physics class! Not that I can talk. I remember my mechanics class and falling asleep a few times, despite my love of Lagrangians.
I used to do a conservation of momentum experiment with an air rifle when I was a teacher. That does the job well enough in that case. Maybe American kids need a real gun to get the excitement up.
Anyhow, if it’s done safely, the teacher should make the decision. It’s hardly as if guns are scarce in this country; if they can be used legally (and they can) then there shouldn’t be a problem if a teacher uses them legally and safely.
Ah, read the article and it appears that it is illegal, in which case, the teacher’s an idiot.
If one builds upon the argument that physicists are considered primary architects of the most deadly weapon on the planet, then physicists – in general – should be granted special entitlements to play around with other sorts of weapons. 😉 However, when using military ballistics in physics curriculums, an undesirable side effect emerges: the side effect of attracting a disproportionate number of gun-enthusiasts to the field. Inarguably, as more gun-enthusiasts gravitate towards physics, the more likely the planet will become inundated with more dangerous weapons. Therefore, I would propose to slightly modify the post’s original premise: astronomy – not ballistics – is the more favorable medium to convey classical mechanics.
Guns don’t kill ballistic pendulums, people do. People with guns, that is.
Adam,
It was not illegal. If you read the article you see that you have a journalist who is questioning its legality. You will also see that the teacher himself investigated very early on (1992), and that it is perfectly legal if done with the proper permissions from school administration. If you also then read any follow-up articles by journalists not biased like the one in the original article, you will see that the D.A. says nothing illegal was done and that she has no intention of investigating further.
Moshe,
Do you mean to imply that getting written permission from the school principle is a “heavy dose of ‘trust me, I was a soldier’ approach”?
This was a classic physics demonstration that this teacher decided was a great teaching tool, and he was right.
I am not surprised by the impression you have, however, because your first comment makes it extremely clear that you don’t analyse the issues from too many angles before setting your opinion.
As far as “some sort of consultation with parents”, I’m curious, where would you draw the line? Should they be consulted on each caustic chemical on a full list of those to be used in experiments at school? What about the pins, clamps and scalpels for the frog dissection class? And the formaldehyde? Is the discretion of the science department at the school not good enough for all these issues? Or the principal? Maybe a town meeting about the fact that the students will actually be lighting bunsen burners and will have open flames in class? They will have bare electrodes and will cause (small) explosions combining hydrogen and oxygen into water vapor. Which of these are OK to do without a consultation with the parents?
It appears to me that this teacher went the extra distance by seeking the approval and written consent of the principal each year he did the demonstration. Are you not satisfied that the principal actually discussed this with the teacher, did some research on the safety and legality of it, and signed off on it?
As far as legality is concerned, understand that the original article only quoted two non-physics-related professionals, both stringently against the demonstration. That should give you an idea of the writer’s position and it might explain the inflamatory rhetoric in that article about felonies and reckless discharge.
But from an article the next day in another newspaper:
I agree with the guns.
I had Mr. Lapp for high school physics and I definitely remember the ballistic pendulum experiment. I can vouch that the whole thing was very safe. Also, supporting Sean’s point about teaching gun safety, I would have to say that Mill Valley is not the sort of place where many people might learn about guns and safety in their homes. The only guns I had ever seen before my senior year were antique shotguns that a friend’s dad had in a display case.
I’d also point out that he is (or at least was back in 1998) easily the most popular teacher in the whole school. So I guess that I would support the “anything to get students enthusiastic about physics” sentiments (I’m a physics graduate student at university of chicago now).
And, besides the Army background (which I don’t remember him mentioning), there is his hard-core Libertanianism. So maybe people should be up in arms because he is bringing his politics into the classroom (kidding).
What interests me is that the demonstrator used a military gun instead of a light air gun or something such, and that the discussion doesn’t care about the overkill gauge of the gun. Shouldn’t a professional (either as gun user or teacher) use the best tool for the task?
Don S., I am not sure we disagree that much. Once again, I would have no problem with the experiment itself, seems to me the guy got this discussion going by not following a proper procedure. What we are seeing now is the discussion that should have taken place before the experiment, consulting all the involved parties, some of which apparently are feeling rather strongly about the issue. Not really sure if you are advocating doing things behind their backs.
And about the “trust me” approach, my only source of information is the article itself, which cited his military background (irrelevant information) a few times, mentioned a few more times that he knows what he is doing. This may well be true in this particular case, but I can understand why some parents see this reassurance as insufficient.
As for drawing the line, as a parent I get to sign lots of permission forms for much milder types of entertainment, basically on a weekly basis. As one possible form of notification, I would have liked to see parental permission forms for this experiment, I would have signed mine.
In Canada it is a requirement in order to have a weapon you must have a FAC and in order to get that, an education in safety and handling of a weapon.
If all the sentiments of proper handling and safety were exemplfied, and as Moshe said, a note to the parents then of course. As well as, clearing it with the school for liability as explained.
Couldn’t help think of the events around children bringing guns to school that have been highlighted in the news lately.
Although we have a Gun registry, it caused great concerns for many who like their freedoms in regards to the country pumpkins, wide open spaces, as well as hunting, there are certain rights that are thought about at the grass roots level.
As a past soldier myself, the thought of something like that without all the “precautions” in the classroom, it is very unsettling, because of what you would want to transmit to the students “in learning” besides, the purpose of that demonstration?