http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/us/06cnd-davis.html?ref=us
A freshman at UC-Davis was recently arrested for having partially-built explosives in his dorm room. It seems that just having the ability to build the explosives is considered a sign of danger. He apparently had no intention of doing harm with it. Should this be a crime? Assuming that UC-Davis has no bylaws restricting explosives (which they probably do although the bylawsmay not have been violated depending on their wording) is there a real problem?
I know that at least one of my uncles built pipe bombs while in high school and that my dad once had the police talk to his parents because he had bought explosive materials. In his case, he was making home-made fireworks. Obviously, this means that building explosives is not totally unusual. There was even a recent article in Fortune Small Business about an exec who made custom firework shows to relax.("Playing With Fire" Feb. 2008)
What should we do with these people who would like to experiment with explosives? Should campus universities assign a lab to them? Should they allow students to work on explosives in their dorms? (probably not because if something does get lit, there tends to be damage and possibly to other people, not just the student and his room)
This is an activity that universities should be encouraging. Experimentation. Building and designing new products. Engineering. Yet it has to do with explosives, which are dangerous. How should schools encourage this academic freedom while balancing safety?
I believe that universities and possibly even high schools should encourage this academic freedom. Heck, most of my science teachers in high school were more than willing to do experiments taht involved flames or explosions. Allowing students to experiment (preferably safely) would likely lead to more interest in school and probably more engineers, or chem/physics majors in higher education. This could help the United States bridge the gap in science where we are falling further and further behind.
The question is, how do we encourage it safely. Especially with the VT and Northern Illinois shootings fresh in our minds, we can imagine somebody using the explosives on school campuses. There is a pressing need to balance safety with experimentation. It is up to the universities and the United States as a whole to find this balance.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Get real !!! It's not up to schools to provide options for those who want to practice building bombs. You want to experiement, get some land, a building and some guidance on your own. Tax payers can't afford this nonsense. If you want to learn explosives on taxpayer money there's outfits called the US Army or Navy Seals who would be happy to educate you.
Maybe it should be up to schools to provide options. Most universities have places where bombs could be built safely and even be tested (well at least small ones). Like inviting controversial speakers, it represents academic freedom. I think most colleges and universities would agree that academic freedom should be supported. The question is how to balance academic freedom with a university's structure and reputation
Why shouldn't tax payers support it? If it means that the United States is more educated and thus better at science and business, why shouldn't they. There's a possibility it could help increase the United States' competitive advantage. Would you say that would be a bad thing? That the US should not try to increase its competitive advantage?
In any case, it appears that citizens may not be allowed to test them on their own. According to the article, the student had them in his dorm room and was experimenting on his own. He didn't need guidance. I was saying that he should probably be supplied with a room or a location where he can experiment safely without risk to other students. Although to be fair if it was just pipebombs, the neighboring students are probably safe depending on how the bomb was packed. If it had lots of shrapnel probably not.
And actually explosives are used by lots of places, including construction. If he wanted to go into explosives as a main job he might go into the army, but he was doing it as a hobby.