News How can teaching gun safety in schools help prevent gun violence?

[Gokul43201]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

What's with the non-sequitur?

 

[B. Elliott]

But you have to admit that you quote the constution which gives you the right to have a gun to protect your liberty, yet you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. An ENTIRELY different reason. A robber is not trying to take your liberty, he wants your money.

The key is, you never know what the robbers intent is when approaches you with a gun. If approaches with a weapon which can be used to kill, I will not assume anything except that he intends to use it.

“The evidence of the natural rights of expatriation, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical”

- Thomas Jefferson.

 

[B. Elliott]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm


If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

 

[Cyrus]

The key is, you never know what the robbers intent is when approaches you with a gun. If approaches with a weapon which can be used to kill, I will not assume anything except that he intends to use it.



- Thomas Jefferson.

Sure, I know 100% that a robber is not trying to take away your liberty. He cant, he doesn't have that power. Only the government can do that to you.

Now he could kill you, in which case having liberty is trivial, but that's besides the point.

You have the right to protect yourself, but it can't be with a gun whose purpose of you having it was to protect your liberty from the government.

 

[B. Elliott]

What's with the non-sequitur?

What do you mean? I'm not familiar with that term.

 

[B. Elliott]

Sure, I know 100% that a robber is not trying to take away your liberty. He cant, he doesn't have that power. Only the government can do that to you.

Now he could kill you, in which case having liberty is trivial, but that's besides the point.

You have the right to protect yourself, but it can't be with a gun whos purpose of you having was to protect your liberty from the government.

If he is in the position to kill me, he is in the position to take away my life which the Constitution states I have a right to. The US government allows me to own a firearm to protect my life.

 

[Gokul43201]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

 

[B. Elliott]

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

If a cop stops me, chances are I have broken the law.

 

[Gokul43201]

What do you mean? I'm not familiar with that term.

Actually it is worse than a non-sequitur (which is a statement unconnected to the previous statement). If anything, the annotation you quoted weakens, rather than strengthens your argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

If a cop stops me, chances are I have broken the law.

Correct. So, the legislature has the right to curb your pursuit of happiness.

 

[B. Elliott]

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

There's no need to distort the wording in an extreme unrealistic manner. I have the utmost respect for police officers (which quite a few of my friends happen to be) and understand they're role which is to serve and protect.

 

[Gokul43201]

Incidentally, what would you do with an intruder that does not threaten to kill you?

 

[B. Elliott]

Correct. So, the legislature has the right to curb your pursuit of happiness.

Yes, but the legislature is not trying to take away my life, which I will defend at all costs.

 

[B. Elliott]

Incidentally, what would you do with an intruder that does not threaten to kill you?

Then I cannot use deadly force.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, but the legislature is not trying to take away my life, which I will defend at all costs.

But you quoted the Declaration, which gives you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why do you now get to single out only life from this list, and disregard the other guarantees?

 

[Jordan Joab]

If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns find themselves in stressful situations that don't necessarily threaten their lives yet they still erroneously conclude they are about to be killed?

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns are under stress/duress and decide that their handgun is the best option to resolve the matter?

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns start killing each other because they mistakenly believe another law-abiding citizen carrying a legal handgun might be a criminal?

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death? No, I don't think people are out to shoot other people but considering the ridiculous reasons why human beings have killed other human beings I don't think giving individuals access to handguns is a great idea.


Jordan.

 

[B. Elliott]

But you quoted the Declaration, which gives you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why do you now get to single out only life from this list, and disregard the other guarantees?

Because one has to use common sense. I'm not going to shoot someone because they made my unhappy, but I will shoot someone if they threaten my life. Happiness is personal idea, thought, opinion. Live is universal.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's no need to distort the wording in an extreme unrealistic manner.

But I didn't. I took your own words and switched out one of the guarantees of the Declaration with another one. It should hold just as much weight as your original argument.

I have the utmost respect for police officers (which quite a few of my friends happen to be) and understand they're role which is to serve and protect.

So now your argument for who you will shoot has to do with who you respect, rather than who takes away the rights given to you in the Declaration?

 

[B. Elliott]

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns find themselves in stressful situations that don't necessarily threaten their lives yet they still erroneously conclude they are about to be killed?

Then it was a bad decision and they risk being put in jail for making a bad decision.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns are under stress/duress and decide that their handgun is the best option to resolve the matter?

Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns start killing each other because they mistakenly believe another law-abiding citizen carrying a legal handgun might be a criminal?

Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death? No, I don't think people are out to shoot other people but considering the ridiculous reasons why human beings have killed other human beings I don't think giving individuals access to handguns is a great idea.

Jordan.

There is a big difference between being prepared and being 'paranoid'. I have life insurance because I am prepared. I don't have life insurance because I am paranoid.

 

[B. Elliott]

But I didn't. I took your own words and switched out one of the guarantees of the Declaration with another one. It should hold just as much weight as your original argument.

Exactly. You switch out one of my rights. It is my decision on how to protect my rights.

So now your argument for who you will shoot has to do with who you respect, rather than who takes away the rights given to you in the Declaration?

Yes. I can choose to shoot someone who makes me unhappy if I feel like it. I can choose to shoot someone for looking at m e the wrong way if I choose too. The problem is, that I will then go to jail and then subsequently have my given rights stripped away from me.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death?

There can be no question of starting, since the practice of carrying personal arms for protection has been around for a long time. So you ought to rephrase that question.

 

[Gokul43201]

Exactly. You switch out one of my rights. It is my decision on how to protect my rights.

But when you make a logical argument, it needs to retain internal consistency. That is a pre-requisite for logic. I was pointing out the absurdity of your using the Declaration as the basis for making your case.

Anyway, you're missing the point that the Declaration of Independence doesn't really give you any rights. Your rights come from the Constitution and the Courts. Maybe I just didn't make the point clearly.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Then it was a bad decision and they risk being put in jail for making a bad decision.



Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.



Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

And assuming more individuals obtain handguns, don't you think the chances of people making lethal bad decisions increases?

There is a big difference between being prepared and being 'paranoid'. I have life insurance because I am prepared. I don't have life insurance because I am paranoid.

I'm sure carrying a handgun is being prepared. That is, until the handgun owner makes a bad decision. I still don't get how more guns on the street make me safer.


Jordan.

 

[B. Elliott]

But when you make a logical argument, it needs to retain internal consistency. That is a pre-requisite for logic. I was pointing out the absurdity of your using the Declaration as the basis for making your case.

Anyway, you're missing the point that the Declaration of Independence doesn't really give you any rights. Your rights come from the Constitution and the Courts. Maybe I just didn't make the point clearly.

How is it not really giving me any rights?

 

[B. Elliott]

And assuming more individuals obtain handguns, don't you think the chances of people making lethal bad decisions increases?

Naturally so. Just as more people start driving, there will be more auto related fatalities. As more airplanes are built, there will be more crashes.

I'm sure carrying a handgun is being prepared. That is, until the handgun owner makes a bad decision. I still don't get how more guns on the street make me safer.

Jordan.

And many car owners make the bad decision to drive while intoxicated and end up killing someone. At that point their license is stripped away from them. When a handgun owner makes a bad decision, he is then putting his own rights at risk.

That is why I am a strong supporter of handgun safety courses. Everyone who intends to carry a handgun needs to attend a course. It teaches both when and how to properly use a firearm. Just as people should take a driving test before they are allowed to operate a vehicle.

 

[WarPhalange]

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me

Really?

for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita. My lawyer would have field day with that.

Yeah, but you'd be dead.

 

[B. Elliott]

Really?

My entire response, if you will...

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita.

So again, a big yes.

Yeah, but you'd be dead.

When you don't separate my response into two sentences, it makes much more sense.

 

[drankin]

We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed. Whether we can carry them on the street or not, at this point, is determined by the state you live in. I currently exercise that right in Washington state and in the state I'm vacationing in right now, Alaska.

People have posted that they don't believe that I am safer for carrying my handgun on the streets. I'm not convinced.

If someone doesn't think they are safer with a handgun in their possession, no one is demanding that they get one! In most states you can legally if you want to, provided you meet the requirements.

There is no evidence that allowing those who have gone through the requirements of their state to be permitted to carry a firearm has caused the community to be LESS safe. NONE. But, as I've posted earlier, there IS evidence that individuals have been able to defend themselves with their guns because they ARE permitted to carry.

If you don't believe that the requirements to carry in public are "safe" enough, then push to increase the requirements. That is certainly fair in our society. But individuals should not be denied the opportunity to satisfy those requirements and be permitted, IMO.

 

[B. Elliott]

We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed. Whether we can carry them on the street or not, at this point, is determined by the state you live in. I currently exercise that right in Washington state and in the state I'm vacationing in right now, Alaska.

People have posted that they don't believe that I am safer for carrying my handgun on the streets. I'm not convinced.

If someone doesn't think they are safer with a handgun in their possession, no one is demanding that they get one! In most states you can legally if you want to, provided you meet the requirements.

There is no evidence that allowing those who have gone through the requirements of their state to be permitted to carry a firearm has caused the community to be LESS safe. NONE. But, as I've posted earlier, there IS evidence that individuals have been able to defend themselves with their guns because they ARE permitted to carry.

If you don't believe that the requirements to carry in public are "safe" enough, then push to increase the requirements. That is certainly fair in our society. But individuals should not be denied the opportunity to satisfy those requirements and be permitted, IMO.

I fully agree. I also wish those who choose not to carry a firearm would quit trying to have the Constitution reconstructed and therefore my gun-carrying right stripped from me. It is a futile attempt. If they do not agree with the Constitution, they can leave the country.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Supreme Court basically told us that Americans have a right to own a handgun. How exactly does handgun ownership makes an individual and his/her property safer? This is simply the equivalent of a child covering him/herself with a bedsheet to ward off the evil monsters.
...
Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?

There have been examples that I see as appropriate in other threads on the same topic. Among them... Defense of your self, your family, your property, and your community during situations of civil disorder such as the Katrina aftermath and the LA riots where the ability of the government to protect you is significantly hindered. Another... People who live in out of the way places where law enforcement is not near at hand (which I believe Ivan does though I may be mistaken) may require means of defending themselves until the sheriff can arrive. In the case of Mr. Horn, had he the presence of mind, he could have just fired a warning shot letting the bandits know it would be a bad idea to come back and possibly even scaring them enough to drop the property they were attempting to abscond with. Theives, especially petty theives, tend to return repeatedly to any area that seems easy to steal from.

I don't own guns and have never even fired a real gun. I have been reluctant to even get myself an armed permit for the purpose of my job, to make more money. But I see sense in the argument for use in the situations I have mentioned above. Whether I would avail myself of the 'right' I am unsure.

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was made to keep a well armed populace in case of government tyranny. That should be the *only* reason we have guns. In fact, I don't think people should even be allowed to use these guns within their own homes as self protection, because again the point of having the guns is not for self protection. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government. ANY use of a gun that's NOT for overthrowing the government should be illegal.

The problem is that, while this may be part of the intention, it does not state this anywhere in the constitution. The militia is actually outlined as a part of national defense in times of invasion, rebellion, and civil unrest. All men of age and in possession of arms may be called to duty for this purpose. I'm sure it would be easy to argue the legality of being "called to duty by necessity" as well (such as the examples of katrina and the LA riots I mention above). Even the Militia Act of 1903 recognizes both organized and unorganized militia.
The 2nd amendment does not outright state that it is to give the people the ability to defend against their government if necessary but I agree that it was, in part, meant to prevent such a necessity by decentralizing the military power effectively giving the people said ability. A sort of built in safeguard.


And to everyone arguing that those weapons granted citizens are not capable of overthrowing the government you may be right. But what of our ability to defend ourselves from the government if needs be? Without guns the military would more or less be able to walk right in and take control. Citizens with guns make this far more tricky and difficult. The government isn't going to send crack squads into take out every person holed up somewhere with a gun. Neither are they going to just carpet bomb the cities with such people in them. What would be the point in taking over just to blow apart all of your infrastructure, kill off a bunch of citizens, and burden yourself with a population of vagrant survivors? And maybe they would take out one city to try to make an example but I am fairly certain that while a great number of people (perhaps even myself included) would be cowed by such an act there will be a small yet significant number of people (mostly those with the guns) who will literally be up in arms over such a display.
And maybe they could win, or at least hol off until a regime change. Guerrillas won the Spanish Civil War against a military take over didn't they?