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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jordan Joab
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Security
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of gun ownership in enhancing personal safety and preventing gun violence. Critics argue that simply owning a handgun does not guarantee safety, as criminals may still outsmart or overpower armed individuals. There are concerns that increased legal gun ownership could lead to a rise in illegal firearms and more violent confrontations. Proponents of gun rights believe that having a firearm can deter crime and provide a means of self-defense, citing instances where individuals successfully defended themselves. Ultimately, the debate highlights the complexities of gun ownership and its implications for societal safety.
  • #91
B. Elliott said:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Let me repeat that: "The significance of the militia", was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.''

Since this is no longer true. There is no longer a need for individual gun ownership. And since the SA justifies the right by stating the need, there is no longer a valid justification for a right to bear arms. Given that, your conclusion, that:
B.Elliott said:
The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.
...is at the very least, poorly constructed.

B. Elliott said:
How is it not really giving me any rights?
The Declaration is not legally binding in any way. If it were, slaves would have been able to sue for rights a long time ago. The Declaration of Independence is merely a symbolic document that mostly went unnoticed from the time of the signing to nearly a century later, when Lincoln said it was something the country ought to strive to follow.

drankin said:
We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed.
Blind assumption is useless.

B. Elliott said:
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.
I'm sorry you are unable to see the problems with the construction of the Second Amendment, and choose to think it obviously gives you a right to carry arms. That is just patently false. It is far from obvious and has been debated endlessly by legal and Constitutional experts as well as the courts. Your own link to the caselaw annotation on the Second Amendment starts with the following sentence.
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.
So stop the dishonesty.

Incidentally, the first people that disagreed with the Constitution, were the framers of the Bill of Rights - Madison, Jefferson, Henry, Mason and others. They are the first people you'd have "leave the country".
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Gokul43201 said:
Let me repeat that: "The significance of the militia", was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.''

Since this is no longer true. There is no longer a need for individual gun ownership. And since the SA justifies the right by stating the need, there is no longer a valid justification for a right to bear arms. Given that, your conclusion, that:...is at the very least, poorly constructed.

This is still 100% true. What do you call the draft?

Whether you believe the Constitution should be changed or not, does not matter one bit. It still applies and I will continue to posses a firearm.

Sorry, Gokul.
 
  • #93
As soon as people with the same opinions as you are allowed to change the Constitution, this country will begin to fall apart. Interpret is as you will, I have possessed a firearm nearly my entire life, my father has possessed a firearm his entire life, the same as my grandfather, great-great grandfather, and his father before him.

And that will not change as long as I'm able to protect that right.
 
  • #94
B. Elliott said:
This is still 100% true. What do you call the draft?
The draft does not produce a militia that serve the state with their own personal firearms. Are you even being serious here? And by the way, it's odd that you bring up the draft, which is possibly the most blatant violation of your right to life and liberty.

Whether you believe the Constitution should be changed or not, does not matter one bit. It still applies and I will continue to posses a firearm.
This is not about changing the Constitution. This is about interpreting it correctly. I've shown you, from your own link, that there is no consensus among the Courts on exactly what rights the SA gives you. Your choosing to portray this issue as unequivocal is either completely misguided or simply dishonest.

Sorry, Gokul.
You can say that after you've said your sorries to Jefferson and Madison and Henry.
 
  • #95
B. Elliott said:
As soon as people with the same opinions as you are allowed to change the Constitution, this country will begin to fall apart. Interpret is as you will, I have possessed a firearm nearly my entire life, my father has possessed a firearm his entire life, the same as my grandfather, great-great grandfather, and his father before him.
When you decide to abandon rationality for mindless slogan pounding, there is no longer a meaningful debate to be had.
 
  • #96
Gokul43201 said:
When you decide to abandon rationality for mindless slogan pounding, there is no longer a meaningful debate to be had.

I'm not abandoning any rationality. It is not illegal for me to possesses a firearm, so I do.

How is that hard to comprehend?
 
  • #97
Actually, I haven't fired my .38 in quite some time. Or my 30-30. I think i'll go in the back yard and shoot off a few rounds for fun.

I love the fact that I can do that.
 
  • #98
Has a conclusion been reached as to whether or not more people arming themselves make the streets a safer place? Or whether arming oneself serves any purpose at all when it comes to increasing personal safety or decreasing the risk of personal injury during an attack by a criminal(s)?

I fail to see how this debate on the legality of owning/carrying firearms is at all relevant to whether or not carrying a firearm is to your advantage in a potentially dangerous, criminal situation.

Just because it's your right (?) to do so, doesn't mean you'll necessarily be any safer in your house or on the streets because of it, except possibly in a case of civil war or unrest where you can see the **** coming a mile away...
 
  • #99
B. Elliott said:
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.

I don't see this as any reconstruction of the constitution. Its actually sticking to what the constitution says. I see gun users as over-abusing the purpose of the 2nd amendment to carry guns around town for personal protection. No where does the constitution say you can bear arms for personal protection.
 
  • #100
Sometimes the criminals intend to kill their victims. A guy that lived in my town was killed a year ago in his home. The robbers kicked his door in , proceeded to beat his wife nearly to death with baseball bats, and then shot the guy several times, took all his money and left. They also never were caught. If he had a gun, maybe he would be alive today, and maybe his wife wouldn't be crippled for life.

Other incidents happen like that close to home sometimes as well, usually it involves criminals high on meth or something.

If guns are made illegal, then criminals will still get them, and they won't be registered, so there will be no tracing them. If they are legal, then those who get them legally will be registered and if they use them they will be traceable.

A person I knew was killed a year ago being stabbed to death. It started out because two illegal aliens at the age of 16 asked someone to buy them alcahol. They refused to, and so the kids stabbed him and ran. Another person chased after the kids, and the kids stopped and turned and stabbed him in the heart killing him. i'd like to see someone try to stab me when I have a gun on me.
 
  • #101
Unfortunately the UN site has a zip file for the data, so I'm using wikipedia which has the data posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

It's obvious when you compare the US which has no gun control and the England, which bans guns, you can see how much lower the murder rate is.

You cannot dispute the facts.

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 7.52
England & Wales - 1.57

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 2.97
England & Wales - 0.12

% homicides with firearms

US - 39%
England & Wales - 8%
 
Last edited:
  • #102
I think it is fair to say that those statistics don't have any significant meaning since the murder rate is so much lower there for non firearm murders than here also. That just goes to show that it is a different place with different criminal activity. I wonder if they have the mexican mafia there?

Maybe they don't have the gang problem we have here. In my opinion, the fact that there are more criminals killing people with guns here is all the more reason that non criminals should have the right to own one to so that they can protect themselves.
 
  • #103
Evo said:
It's obvious
What precisely is obvious?


You cannot dispute the facts.
Tangential gripe: facts don't 'speak for themselves'. Facts, by themselves, don't prove anything -- you need a (valid) argument based on those facts to prove something! The validity of said argument is, of course, a candidate for dispute. (As well as the veracity of an assertion claimed as fact)
 
  • #104
Hurkyl said:
What precisely is obvious?
The lower murder rate in England for one.

I'm trying to get overall crime statistics also.
 
  • #105
Here's a good example, immediately after the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect violent crime drops 58%. It's something to think about. Fewer guns, less violent crime?

1994
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. (ATF's Brady Law web site.)

From 1993 to 2005 (last year in the study) the violent crime rate was down 58% from 50 to 21 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:YofmY_ffKVEJ:www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv05.pdf+National+Crime+Victimization+Survey&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

One of my best friends was murdered with a gun, bullet through the head, he had a gun. I witnessed a drive by shooting (murder), wouldn't have mattered how many guns the guy was carrying, he was shot in the back.

Another dear friend was a bounty hunter for several years, talk about guns, he quit after his wife got pregnant and became a well to do Corporate Headhunter. Loves his guns though.

My gripe is that a large majority of people IMO are not too bright and have no business owning a gun. I don't have problems with people that know what they're doing, I'd count those in the minority. I am an excellent shot and enjoy shooting at the firing range. I just don't feel safe with the average person carrying hand guns, mkay?

Sorry, I made the mistake of Downloading v9.0 of Acrobat reader and it is really hosed up or I would have better files to link to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #106
sketchtrack said:
I think it is fair to say that those statistics don't have any significant meaning since the murder rate is so much lower there for non firearm murders than here also. That just goes to show that it is a different place with different criminal activity. I wonder if they have the mexican mafia there?

Maybe they don't have the gang problem we have here. In my opinion, the fact that there are more criminals killing people with guns here is all the more reason that non criminals should have the right to own one to so that they can protect themselves.

Don't you think that if the number of individuals with legal handguns increases it will also increase the number of criminals carrying illegal handguns? After all, if criminals realize more non-criminals are armed they'll simply become more violent or focus even more on weak non-criminals like the elderly, children, and teenagers.

It is absurd to think that just because more citizens carry handguns crime will be deterred or reduced. If anything, these criminals will be more willing to kill you first and take your possessions after.

And let's not forget how more individuals with legal handguns on the streets increases the chances of more "accidental" deaths due to prejudice, fear, stress, anger, paranoia, etc.



Jordan.
 
  • #107
Evo said:
Unfortunately the UN site has a zip file for the data, so I'm using wikipedia which has the data posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

It's obvious when you compare the US which has no gun control and the England, which bans guns, you can see how much lower the murder rate is.

You cannot dispute the facts.

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 7.52
England & Wales - 1.57
I posted the link to this data in my first post in the thread, but I don't imagine many people followed all the links, so let me just paste the relevant data here:
Code:
Year  	Homicide per Mil pop
1967      	7.3
1968 	        7.4
1969     	6.8
1970     	7.0
1971     	8.3
1972    	8.3
1973    	8.0
1974    	10.7
1975    	9.0
1976    	9.9
1977     	8.5
1978     	9.6
1979    	11.1
1980    	11.1
1981    	10.1
1982    	11.2
1983    	9.7
1984    	10.8
1985    	10.7
1986    	11.2
1987    	11.9
1988    	10.9
1989    	10.3
1990    	10.9
1991    	12.2
1992    	11.4
1993    	11.0
1994    	12.3
1995    	12.8
1996    	11.2
1997    	11.7
1998    	12.5 
1999    	13.2
2000    	15.5

For more recent years, see: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp

For reference, UK's gun control laws were enacted between 1988 and 1997. Also note that the UK introduced the National Crime Recording Standard in Apr 2002.

And to show that a comparison of national crime rates across countries at a single point in time can be anything from misleading to unilluminating, consider this excerpt from the UN data (also linked in my first post):
UNICRI said:
An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%).

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/

The lack of any change in homicide rates following gun control legislation is even more apparent in Australia, where the gun buy back program was implemented in 1997.

See: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi359t.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #108
Jordan Joab said:
Don't you think that if the number of individuals with legal handguns increases it will also increase the number of criminals carrying illegal handguns? After all, if criminals realize more non-criminals are armed they'll simply become more violent or focus even more on weak non-criminals like the elderly, children, and teenagers.

It is absurd to think that just because more citizens carry handguns crime will be deterred or reduced. If anything, these criminals will be more willing to kill you first and take your possessions after.

And let's not forget how more individuals with legal handguns on the streets increases the chances of more "accidental" deaths due to prejudice, fear, stress, anger, paranoia, etc.
Jordan.

A criminal cannot get a firearm legally, so absolutely no. You can't get firearm unless you pass the background check, and if you have any even minor thing on it, then you can't get one.

I also seriously doubt that the average thug or meth addict is staying up to date on percentages of people with legal handguns.

Also I wouldn't want to be in the position of hoping that the guy kicking in my door or sneaking up behind me in a alley isn't planning on killing me. I would rather that my life is in my hands rather than at the mercy of a random criminal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #109
Evo said:
Unfortunately the UN site has a zip file for the data, so I'm using wikipedia which has the data posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

It's obvious when you compare the US which has no gun control and the England, which bans guns, you can see how much lower the murder rate is.

You cannot dispute the facts.

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 7.52
England & Wales - 1.57

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 2.97
England & Wales - 0.12

% homicides with firearms

US - 39%
England & Wales - 8%

How about comparing Oakland California to Los Gatos California, I bet there will be big differences in statistics, but it has little or nothing to do with laws.

In Los Gatos, I feel safe and would never think to have a need for personal protection, but if I was walking around in Oakland, I would feel a lot safer with one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #110
Your study doesn't adjust for the differences in what is reported and what is considered an assualt or violent crime, making it rather meaningless.

Overall crime statistic comparisons are difficult to conduct, as the definition of crimes significant enough to be published in annual reports varies across countries. Thus an agency in a foreign country may include crimes in its annual reports which the United States omits. Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Reported property crime in the US is actually lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher. There were 17,034 murders in the United States in 2006[29] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[30] Interestingly enough, the overall violent crime rate in the United States was roughly half that of Canada, despite its homicide rate being 189.5% higher; note from the references, however, that the US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Simple Assault (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[6][31] According to a recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, where crime figures were adjusted for international comparison, the United States had a lower overall burglary rate than Scotland, England, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia. The other two countries included in the study, Sweden and Switzerland, had only slightly lower burglary rates.[28]

“ "Due to the difficulties of comparing national crime trends between countries some of the data included in this report may be adjusted or estimated. This is because of differences in measuring crimes and definitions of crime type. The report does however state clearly which pieces of data have been adjusted and why."-David P. Farrington, Patrick A. Langan, Michael Tonry (Bureau of Justice Statistics), 2004[28] ”

Despite the overall crime rate of the United States being seemingly in line with that of other industrialized countries, its homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. Comparing just homicide rates by themselves, however, may not be representative of the overall crime rate of a country. Only the homicide rate of Northern Ireland in the early 1990s compares to that of the United States today. In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, compared to 1.9 in Canada and 1.0 in Germany.[31] This means that the homicide rate in the United States was nearly three times as high as in Canada and slightly more than five times as high as in Germany.[6][32] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark. Overall the homicide rate in the United States was similar to that of some lesser developed Eastern European countries.[33][34][35]

Country Ireland[36] Norway[36] Germany[31] United Kingdom[36] France[36] Canada[6] United States[7] Russia[36] Venezuela[36] Jamaica[36] South Africa[36] Colombia[36]
Homicide rate 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.9 5.5 20.15 31.61 32.41 49.60 61.78
Year 2000 2000 2004 2000 2004 2004 2004 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Where there is a marked disparity between the incidence of crime in the US and all other comparable developed countries is in the per capita rate of murder committed with firearms. The most recent data show that the proportion of Americans killed by firearms is more than three and a half times greater than the next country of comparable development (Portugal.)[37] The proportion of Americans killed by firearms per year is more than seven and a half times greater than the comparable proportion of residents in the 10 developed countries with the next highest rates of firearm homicides.[38]

SOURCES: US Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004),[7] Bundeskriminalamt, BKA (2004),[31] Canada Statistics (2004),[6] Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2000)[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
 
  • #111
Evo said:
[
One of my best friends was murdered with a gun, bullet through the head, he had a gun. I witnessed a drive by shooting (murder), wouldn't have mattered how many guns the guy was carrying, he was shot in the back.

Another dear friend was a bounty hunter for several years, talk about guns, he quit after his wife got pregnant and became a well to do Corporate Headhunter. Loves his guns though.

Sure there are instances where it wouldn't have mattered if you had a weapon or not, but there are also instances where having one can save your life. So at very least you can say without doubt that there is more potential for safety carrying a firearm than not.
 
  • #112
sketchtrack said:
A criminal cannot get a firearm legally, so absolutely no. You can't get firearm unless you pass the background check, and if you have any even minor thing on it, then you can't get one.

I also seriously doubt that the average thug or meth addict is staying up to date on percentages of people with legal handguns.

Also I wouldn't want to be in the position of hoping that the guy kicking in my door or sneaking up behind me in a alley isn't planning on killing me. I would rather that my life is in my hands rather than at the mercy of a random criminal.

Criminals obtain guns illegally. Criminals do update themselves by word of mouth and perception; if they notice more victims are armed and fighting back I'm sure these criminals become more violent. This is not the point of the thread.

Does an increase of legal handguns makes us more likely to fall victim to handgun-related violence and/or accidents?

Are we as a society comfortable with the idea of a bigger number of legal handguns in our cities? I'm not.

sketchtrack said:
How about comparing Oakland California to Los Gatos California, I bet there will be big differences in statistics, but it has little or nothing to do with laws.

In Los Gatos, I feel safe and would never think to have a need for personal protection, but if I was walking around in Oakland, I would feel a lot safer with one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Gatos,_California

Has little to do with laws and more to do with poverty, arguably the root of the majority of crimes in the U.S.



Jordan.
 
  • #113
sketchtrack said:
Sure there are instances where it wouldn't have mattered if you had a weapon or not, but there are also instances where having one can save your life. So at very least you can say without doubt that there is more potential for safety carrying a firearm than not.
Buit it can also be argued that the more average citizens have guns, the more criminals feel the need to carry guns, making the potential for an act of random violence higher.
 
  • #114
That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?

But what data you can look at is how many people get shot in a spur of the moment action, i.e. someone got really mad and shot the other person, either in a bar or road rage incident, etc.
 
  • #115
Evo said:
Your study doesn't adjust for the differences in what is reported and what is considered an assualt or violent crime, making it rather meaningless.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Who is this addressed to, which study are you talking about? And please elaborate on your objection - it isn't particularly clear to me.
 
  • #116
WarPhalange said:
That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?
Actually, it could be a very sensible reason. Some people would prefer to lose their wallet once a month to the alternative of saving their wallet but risking a shoot-out once a year.
 
  • #117
WarPhalange said:
That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?

But what data you can look at is how many people get shot in a spur of the moment action, i.e. someone got really mad and shot the other person, either in a bar or road rage incident, etc.

I know, if everyone thought that way, you could just go around asking people to give them your money or there will be trouble. Criminals would be living the good life and business would be good. They would have never had it easier. People would be moving here from all over the world just to get some of the action while getting would be good. LOL Ok maybe not that extreme. But then say criminals were getting shot down half the time they tried to mug someone, criminals would be laying low. If they start being more violent, that means more risk, and harder to do business.

There are always going to be those kids going crazy and killing a bunch of people and themselves. There are those guys that kill there cheating wives, and there are those guys who have a mental breakdown and go nuts.

Still, those guys are people who you need to protect yourselves from as well. I find it hard to imagine that it is having a gun that triggers that persons attitude, but it does serve him a good tool of destruction. Still who is to say that the kid wouldn't just stab someone, what is to say the guy wouldn't just poison his wife, and what is to say the crazy dude wouldn't just set a house on fire.

There is though like you say spur of the moment things where if a person hadn't been armed they would have attacked the other person some other way maybe not resulting in a death. Those statistics would be worth looking at like you said, but it would still have to be a huge result to warrant changing the constitution.
 
  • #118
sketchtrack said:
Sometimes the criminals intend to kill their victims. A guy that lived in my town was killed a year ago in his home. The robbers kicked his door in , proceeded to beat his wife nearly to death with baseball bats, and then shot the guy several times, took all his money and left. They also never were caught. If he had a gun, maybe he would be alive today, and maybe his wife wouldn't be crippled for life.

Other incidents happen like that close to home sometimes as well, usually it involves criminals high on meth or something.

If guns are made illegal, then criminals will still get them, and they won't be registered, so there will be no tracing them. If they are legal, then those who get them legally will be registered and if they use them they will be traceable.

A person I knew was killed a year ago being stabbed to death. It started out because two illegal aliens at the age of 16 asked someone to buy them alcahol. They refused to, and so the kids stabbed him and ran. Another person chased after the kids, and the kids stopped and turned and stabbed him in the heart killing him. i'd like to see someone try to stab me when I have a gun on me.

Nice stories, what's the point?
 
  • #119
Cyrus said:
Nice stories, what's the point?

The point is that sometimes things can go smoother when you are armed such as those situations. So if you think that getting robbed or attacked for something petty is going to always go smoother when you put your hands up and say take my money, then that's not right.
 
  • #120
Jordan Joab said:
Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

There is no such thing as an "illegal gun". There are only guns in the hands of people who have acquired them illegally. Pass all the gun bans you want, what makes you think a CRIMINAL is going to obey laws?

Gun bans are a bad deal all around, because the criminals get the guns (as always), and the law-abiding citizen is left without any viable means with which to defend him/herself from said criminal.
Jordan Joab said:
Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?

Um, maybe because you can defend yourself imediately? Or, you can call the cops, and they'll eventually show up to investigate your death.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K