Brayden Quinby Mack: Gun Range and Forensic Science

When I got to England, I did not think I would be shooting a shotgun; however, on my fourth week of attending the University of Winchester I did exactly this. I took a course on forensic science and the department was going to a gun range for an experiment. They invited me to come along, even though I was not a major in their department. I was confused how this activity would relate to the degree. Despite being confused, I went along with the department to the gun range. Once we arrived, the gun range employees gave us instructions on gun safety and how to shoot clay pigeons. This was all a review to me, because I have shot clay pigeons since I was gifted a .22 rifle on my twelfth birthday. However, I could see the anxious faces of some of the students. They were all talking about how they had never shot a gun and how they were nervous that it was going to hurt their shoulder.

After the safety review was over, the instructors lead students out to the shed to begin shooting. My group was the second to go out, so we followed the instructor into the shed that was shielding us from the heavy rain. I got in the shed, and the instructor handed me the gun and told me where to aim. I pointed the gun up and shot at the clay pigeons. When the first clay pigeon was launched, I was startled, and I shot below it. The instructor told me to shoot higher, and this allowed me to shoot the next two. After I finished shooting the clay pigeons, he told me I was only student that had been able to shoot two. I told him it was not my first time and he looked back at me and said, “You are not English, are you?” I explained to him I was not English, and that I lived in South Carolina, and the rationale for taking this class. He looked at the other instructor and said, “No wonder this student is able to shoot well, he has had access to guns since he was a child in America.” After this, he ushered me back into the learning building where the professors were waiting on us.

The professors came up and explained to my group that we needed to collect the gunshot residue from our hands after we fired the guns. They explained that we would practice the glue lift method they had been taught in class. I was unaware of how to do this, but the other students agreed and seemed to understand the process. I looked at my professor and asked how I would perform this test. She explained that I would use a sticky gel ball and roll it over the hand I used to shoot the gun. She said once I rolled the ball over my hand, the glue on the ball would adhere to the gun powder residue. I completed the test, but I was confused about the outcome.

To understand the collecting of gun powder residue more, I was able to research it on the database when we got back to the University. Shrivastava and Nagpal in their article “Gunshot residue detection technologies—a review,” describe the importance of collecting gunshot residue in terms of forensic analysis. They go into detail how the collection of gunpower residue is used in forensics to help solve any incidents involving firearms. The gunshot residue could be used to identify the gun, shooter, or both. The forensic science students that were participating in gunshot residue collection were going to examine the residue collected using scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray analysis (SEM/Edx). Viewing the residue with SEM/Edx allows the students to determine the gun that had been shot. The article helped me understand the glue lift test. This experience helped me realize the differences in the classes I had compared to those offered at the University of Winchester.

After I had spent some time in my forensic science class, I found out Forensic Practitioners that graduate from the University of Winchester have no chemistry background; I was not aware of this. I took this class with the assumption that chemistry would be a common dominator between the forensic science majors and myself. However, when I mentioned that I was a chemistry major to one of my classmates, they were shocked. They said they could never major in chemistry and that their last chemistry class was in college (college being England’s high school). This seemed strange to me, and I confirmed this with the instructor. However, I could not understand how these students could be forensic science majors and have no chemistry classes. Especially because with their major, they were able to go out into the forensic field and perform tests. These tests include: getting samples of hair, bodily fluids, examining gun power and gun residue, and other evidence that they could use for investigation. They would also run laboratory tests on items they collected. I questioned how they would be able to do this sample collecting and testing if they did not understand the chemistry behind what they were doing.

While my first few weeks of attending class were spent thinking how these students are well educated, after going to the gun range with the department I understood their degree program. The gun powder residue was used by forensic classes that were more lab based. I did not know my classmates were taking these lab classes. After participating in field data collection with the forensic science department, I was able to understand how the students graduated with a degree in forensic science and would be able to become Forensic Practitioners. The students were taught how to run and perform tests related to their field; this included the tests performed at the gun range. The students may not know all the chemistry behind the science they are doing, but they will be able to perform these tests well with the schooling that they are receiving.

However, I was still questioning the educational differences that were apparent between English and American education. English students were getting a deeper education at a lower level in their university education. This level of depth for American students would not be reached, usually, until the American students reached graduate level courses. After comparing the educations, I realized English students were getting an almost graduate level education while they were in undergraduate. American students were not getting the same level of education. Many American students must attend graduate school to even be considered for jobs; however, this did not seem to be a problem with the English undergraduate students. The English undergraduate students are not only going into more depth with their education, but they are getting a better deal with their education. They will be able to use their undergraduate degree to do the career they desire, without the societal need to obtain a masters/doctorate to prove their knowledge. This means American students are not being held to the higher expectations as are English students.

After attending the University of Winchester, I concluded I was receiving a lower quality education, and this made me upset. Not only was I paying more money for tuition than most of the students at the University of Winchester, but I was also getting a lower quality education. I would not be able to get the depth of knowledge that the English students were getting during my undergraduate degree. I would have to continue to a graduate degree if I wanted to be on the same academic level as English students. The American education system is not providing the level of knowledge that the English do, leading to American graduates being subpar compared to English graduates.

Brayden in a phone booth in London

Brayden Mack is a junior from Swansea S.C., that is majoring in chemistry with an emphasis in health sciences. He plans to graduate in spring 2025 and further his education in medical or optometry school. He intends to focus his career in health-sciences. He has been interning at varying medical practices to determine his specialty.