Saudi former student charged with CROSSBOW attack on lecturer

[ForSnappySwan]

Just read this horrific story about the University of Surrey. A 21-year-old Saudi ex student has been charged with attempted murder after shooting a campus safety officer (in his 50s) with a crossbow at Manor Park Student Village.

The poor man was airlifted to hospital but is stable, thank goodness. The student has also been charged with possession of an offensive weapon and other bladed weapons.

How on earth does someone get hold of a crossbow and bring it onto campus? Along with blades? Universities are supposed to be safe places for our kids to live and study, not places where staff get shot with weapons while doing their jobs.

How many more incidents like this before proper action is taken on weapon possession and enforcement? The soft approach clearly isn't working. Anyone else's kids at uni feeling the change in atmosphere? Or am I being unreasonable for thinking campus safety is getting worse?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgzg417yxno

It is legal to own a crossbow because they are used in archery. If you start legislating that, you'd wipe out a sport in its entirety. I own a recurve bow - it lives in its disassembled state in a bag and stays that way until I reach the site where I am shooting, but it is nevertheless a potentially lethal weapon (albeit that it requires considerable skill to actually hit someone with it).

Let's focus on catching and dealing with the people who misuse things rather than banning them.

Your focus on the nationality of the offender is misplaced, by the way. A British man was sentenced to life imprisonment for using a crossbow in his offences, so why focus on that side of it? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg70vjmv08ro

Why can't I mention that the arrested man is Saudi?

It's literally the first thing BBC News says about him in the link.

Is it because I didn't mention the nationality of the man he allegedly attempted to murder? I believe he is British.

Given a British man was sentenced two days ago for murdering a Cambridge based Saudi student, I do wonder about your focus on the nationality of this attacker, yes.

I thought the same thing. What has his nationality got to do with anything?

His nationality is literally in every report on this. The police also released this info. Whether they are victims or criminals, we often talk about the identity of them.

We all know who the BBC works for.

A crime has been committed. It is very much a non-culture specific crime, i.e. not an honour killing or the like. Therefore, bringing the nationality of the perpetrator into it - whether it's you or the BBC doing it - speaks of an agenda. If you were genuinely concerned about access to and possession of weapons, you needn't have mentioned nationality at all - but you did, and so you aren't.

Shall we also point out that the victim wasn't a lecturer?

Not that that matters for the poor man.

National guidelines following, I believe, Southport, said the police should release nationality. (this still isn't enough for some Reform politicians because they meant colour as they revealed after the Peterborough attacks and got all confused after Liverpool).

But that information is in the final sentence of the link you shared. It also wasn't in the two BBC headlines I saw.

I literally stated his job in the original post and provided a link that gave more information about it..

A few people on here need to chill out and stop showing off how anti racist they are. It has real "pick me!" vibes to it!

Your OP says he is a lecturer so perhaps ask HQ to amend your title.

Not sure what you mean by 'pick me' which is usually a misogynistic insult.

What is your evidence for a national change of safety on campuses anyway?

Have there been other incidents on campus?

Meningitis was a concern , yes. If mine were at Surrey, I'd be shocked but I wouldn't assume there was danger of crossbow attacks in, say, Keele.

You can walk onto most campuses without many checks i think?

but certainly when you walk past the London ones, you can see security guards around but there wouldn't be anything to stop you going up to a building

I presume you would then need a student pass to get into a building - but the attacker would've had a student pass anyway.

Unless people want them to be like some of the schools that have metal detectors at the front - is that still a thing?

I think anybody considers a crossbow attack to be a risk if they've read a certain book sadly

Anyway, I hope the staff member is alright. I gather it's a miracle that it didn't kill him.

i'm horrified of course

I'm sure the universities do these kind of risk assessment though - because people could take anything onto campus or into a building.

The same is true of a workplace. I would be very taken back if I suddenly had to go through some kind of security pat down every time I went to an office. I suppose no one would say no though.

What book? If it's Shriver's that's a bow and arrow.

no, it's a crossbow.

I think they buy him a bow and arrow when he's younger because they want him to develop a hobby or something. But later on they buy him a crossbow.

OK , must be misremembering as in the film adaptation it's a bow and arrow. I reread the book last year though so surprised I didn't notice!

Either way, it's totally fictional of course.

Crossbows have a legitimate place in bowsports, specifically field archery of the NFAS kind (which is my federation). Though it has to be said that about half of all clubs do not allow crossbows at their open shoots because they are so high velocity and power that they cause excess wear and tear on the targets, which are 3D representations of animals. And given that a medium sized wild boar costs about £300, that is understandable. It's less of an issue with paper targets, of course.

But crossbows provide access to archery for people who cannot draw a conventional bow or even a compound bow, so a ban would disproportionately affect archers with disabilities.

How many more incidents like this before proper action is taken on weapon possession and enforcement?

How many such incidents have there been?

Two in the past couple of years, so not earthshaking. But it's a fair question to ask - and there is no need to mention anyone's nationality in order to ask it.

Laura has been campaigning for years for similar licensing to guns for crossbows. Her story is horrific. https://www.isonharrison.co.uk/blog/campaigners-secure-major-victory-as-government-confirms-crossbow-sales-ban-and-new-licensing-regime/

Yeah but I think we know what the OP is actually alluding to and trying to stir up.

Did he get a bad grade? Is that why he did it?

Best Warrior Princess post on Mumsnet tonight.
Imagining that wild boar.

You need to calm down OP.

One guy, for we know not what reason, attacked another. It is, sadly, not uncommon.

The law regarding the possession of crossbows is already strict but, as you will see if you consider for a moment, the much, much, stricter laws on gun ownership do not prevent shootings.

You cannot legislate problems away.

That's a real shame for disabled archers for whom a crossbow is the only access to their sport. Exemptions need to be put in place - restrictions and supervision is fine; there are restrictions to how, where and when I can carry, assemble and handle my bow. A ban is excessive.

Well, the boar is made of specialised foam rubber so it's fortunately not going to charge me.

I'm no warrior princess, I just enjoy walking round the woods flinging pointy sticks at targets with a bunch of similar friendly loons. It's good exercise too, a standard shoot is 6 - 7 miles over rough ground.