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

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

In all seriousness I'd like to suggest to you that carrying a gun in an area where there are likely armed gangbangers is probably far more dangerous than going with out. If per chance you are ever making such a decision please leave it at home. It's a lot easier and safer to just be aware of where you are, what you are doing, and who is around you.

 

[Cyrus]

The second amendment goes against Hobbes' Leviathan. We have only very few valid arguments to explain how it comes violence has been constantly reduced over time in our societies. Among those few arguments, Hobbes' Leviathan is considered one of the most compelling. Jeopardizing this for an outdated conception of politics is insanity to me.

I don't know what Hobbes' Leviathen is.

 

[sketchtrack]

If I went their with my family, then I would at least hope to have some sort of insurance to use to protect them.

 

[GeorginaS]

I don't know what Hobbes' Leviathen is.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html"

 

[humanino]

I don't know what Hobbes' Leviathen is.

Leviathan (wiki)

Leviathan [...] is a book written by Thomas Hobbes which was published in 1651. [...] The book concerns the structure of society [...] Thomas Hobbes argues for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. [...] Hobbes wrote that chaos or civil war — situations identified with a state of nature [...] — could only be averted by strong central government. He thus denied any right of rebellion toward the social contract, which would be later added by John Locke and conserved by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. However, Hobbes did discuss the possible dissolution of the State. As the social contract was made to institute a state that would provide for the "peace and defence" of the people, the contract would become void if the government no longer protected its citizens. In such a case, man would automatically return to a state of nature until the creation of a new social contract.

It is a very important texts in politics theory. Of course, it is quite old. But most of the theory remains.

Will you admit that the second amendment was written at a different time to answer concerns which have disappeared ?
[thread=62526]Are you still worried about the brits invading the U.S. of A. ?[/thread]

 

[sketchtrack]

A future civil war isn't out of the question.

 

[Cyrus]

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html"

Thanks, but I was hoping for a book review, not the actual book!

 

[Cyrus]

Leviathan (wiki)
It is a very important texts in politics theory. Of course, it is quite old. But most of the theory remains.

Will you admit that the second amendment was written at a different time to answer concerns which have disappeared ?
[thread=62526]Are you still worried about the brits invading the U.S. of A. ?[/thread]

Its not about the brits invading the USA, so your point makes no sense. Why do you assume that the concerns have disappeared? I see no proof of this claim on your part.

 

[humanino]

A future civil war isn't out of the question.

Do you know that right now, with have in Europe armed groups claiming for independence, committing terrorist acts ? We do have our bunch of insane people as well you know. That does not prevent the police and the army to deal with it decently. With all the money you spend on army, you still worry about a civil war ? Your army has more money than all the other armies of the world. I'd like to see a bunch of texans trying to rebel against the american army. That would be fun for a change.

 

[humanino]

Its not about the brits invading the USA, so your point makes no sense.

I was trying some humour.

Why do you assume that the concerns have disappeared?

The claim is my previous post, that the army has reached so much power that whatever weapons you have, you cannot defend against. That is simply impossible. This level of technology individuals can not afford.

 

[sketchtrack]

The south still has lots of power through politics. I've heard Marines say that if Obama gets elected then there's going to be an overthrow. I know that is all probably B.S., but the possibility is there.

Also there is the instances in which the government doesn't provide good enough protection to depend on. There are areas in Chicago that police don't even go to for any reason because there are snipers in the skyscrapers.

 

[humanino]

[off topic]
I'd like to point here something else that bothers me.

Discussion is not about proving somebody else wrong, but about exchanging ideas. When you say "it's not about the brits so your point is not valid", this is simply mean and not even useful. Even in mathematics, some points in a demonstration can be fixed you know. It is not enough to see that one single sentence in a book contains a typo to reject the whole book. Unless, of course, if you bought the book the find a typo, and not to actually read it.
[/off topic]

 

[Cyrus]

I was trying some humour. The claim is my previous post, that the army has reached so much power that whatever weapons you have, you cannot defend against. That is simply impossible. This level of technology individuals can not afford.

Mmmm, I don't agree with that. Look at Iraq and you will see how they can do heavy damage with meager weapons. Sucka, fool!

This is also why I'd like to see Americans having assault rifles with grenade launchers (military grade), etc.

 

[humanino]

There are areas in Chicago that police don't even go to for any reason because there are snipers in the skyscrapers.

Very interesting. You see, I used to live 200m from a large complex of buildings where the french police has not gone for decades. I have seen more than once somebody die of a shotgun there, and I mean with my very eyes. My feelings from that is you did not read :

In all seriousness I'd like to suggest to you that carrying a gun in an area where there are likely armed gangbangers is probably far more dangerous than going with out. If per chance you are ever making such a decision please leave it at home. It's a lot easier and safer to just be aware of where you are, what you are doing, and who is around you.

 

[sketchtrack]

I read it, and it seams counter intuitive to me. I 'm wondering, are the criminals that seek to harm me will have x ray vision and see the concealed weapon, or will they kidnap me, and frisk me and kill me if I have a gun? Your opinion is only valid if the person in the case is very brave and stupid.

 

[Cyrus]

[off topic]
I'd like to point here something else that bothers me.

Discussion is not about proving somebody else wrong, but about exchanging ideas. When you say "it's not about the brits so your point is not valid", this is simply mean and not even useful. Even in mathematics, some points in a demonstration can be fixed you know. It is not enough to see that one single sentence in a book contains a typo to reject the whole book. Unless, of course, if you bought the book the find a typo, and not to actually read it.
[/off topic]

What you said was fundmentally wrong, thus it was not valid. What do you want me to say that won't offend you? ...come on humanino. Grow thicker skin.

 

[Cyrus]

The south still has lots of power through politics. I've heard Marines say that if Obama gets elected then there's going to be an overthrow. I know that is all probably B.S., but the possibility is there.

Also there is the instances in which the government doesn't provide good enough protection to depend on. There are areas in Chicago that police don't even go to for any reason because there are snipers in the skyscrapers.

Do you have a source for this. I'd like to know more. Snipers in skyscrapers? What the hell is the mayor doing if that's true.

 

[humanino]

Let me give you another example, just so you think about it really.

One of my close friend was a refugee from Rwanda. He knows about wild violence. He survived only because he was left dead on the ground, hiding under the body of his very father in his house. He was very interested in politics, and dreams to become president of his native country. It so happens that this person, despite being very aware of what violence can lead to and how important it may be able to protect the ones you love, was in favor of banning guns. But I guess, despite his remarkable academic accomplishments , he is just a fool.

 

[Cyrus]

Let me give you another example, just so you think about it really.

One of my close friend was a refugee from Rwanda. He knows about wild violence. He survived only because he was left dead on the ground, hiding under the body of his very father in his house. He was very interested in politics, and dreams to become president of his native country. It so happens that this person, despite being very aware of what violence can lead to and how important it may be able to protect the ones you love, was in favor of banning guns. But I guess, despite his remarkable academic accomplishments , he is just a fool.

WHAT!? Whats this got to do with anything?.....

Im glad he feels that way...what's the point of this? If you want me to take you serious, then I hope you have something serious and coherent to say.

This is wayyyyyyyyyyyy out in left field man.

 

[Jordan Joab]

This thread keeps veering off-topic.

Here's the topic:

Do more law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns make us more secure or less secure?

A) Advantages of more citizens carrying legal handguns.
B) Disadvantages of more individuals owning legal handguns.
C) Tasers/pepper spray are a better answer to personal protection concerns. Yes? No?

Please stay on this. Thank you.



Jordan.

 

[humanino]

WHAT!? Whats this got to do with anything?.....

Im glad he feels that way...what's the point of this? If you want me to take you serious, then I hope you have something serious and coherent to say.

This is wayyyyyyyyyyyy out in left field man.

I don't think this is out in left field. I am not sure I should continue, because if you feel my point is unrelated, it will get us nowhere. You are telling me that people need weapons to defend themselves in case of political instabilities. We disagree on that. There does not seem to be any way to convince people one way or another because of the intensity people feel about those questions. But did they really study or consider them seriously ? Are you interested in people's experience, instead of talking about speculative situations and their putative solutions ? So I raise two specific examples, because general arguments do not seem to reach anywhere.

I am taking this example in Europe of violent groups claiming for independence, indicating that other countries actually have problems you are speculating, and do not resort to the extreme solution advocated, namely have everybody armed, although for them, the problem is not speculative. It seems interesting to me, the depth of the cultural gap we have here. In addition, I thought informative to mention this person who has seriously dedicated his entire life to politics because of violence in his childhood he was victim of. I wish I could get in contact with him right now, because I know he would be fond of explaining his position, and he would do it much better than me, I can tell you he is tailor made for politics If there is any situation you can name which would be better suited scenario to back up the claim that we need to be armed to defend ourselves, I'd like to hear it. This wildness reaches unimaginable levels. So how come, how is it possible that somebody who went through this could advocate gun (and weapons in general) ban ? And entire regions of Europe do the same, although they suffered from those local groups for decades.

All right, I just saw Jordan's post. Fine, I do not expect that my points make sense to you. Probably cultural gap, although I hate to come to those conclusions. It may not be a surprise actually, that this second amendment is so deeply rooted in american culture that it simply does not make sense to raise anything contradictory to it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I read it, and it seams counter intuitive to me. I 'm wondering, are the criminals that seek to harm me will have x ray vision and see the concealed weapon, or will they kidnap me, and frisk me and kill me if I have a gun? Your opinion is only valid if the person in the case is very brave and stupid.

I mean it only as a sincere suggestion on safety from one member of this community to another. I'm fairly certain from what I read in the papers and from the people I've talked to that carrying a gun, if they happen to notice (something I am sure they know how to look for), may serve to make you a target. These are people who get in scraps, knife fights, and shoot outs with other gang members, on purpose, knowing full well that one or more of them may be armed.
Again... Just a sincere suggestion. I don't mean to argue your personal choices with you.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think this is out in left field. I am not sure I should continue, because if you feel my point is unrelated, it will get us nowhere. You are telling me that people need weapons to defend themselves in case of political instabilities. We disagree on that. There does not seem to be any way to convince people one way or another because of the intensity people feel about those questions. But did they really study or consider them seriously ? Are you interested in people's experience, instead of talking about speculative situations and their putative solutions ? So I raise two specific examples, because general arguments do not seem to reach anywhere.

Whoa there...your example about a guy in RWANDA is apples and oranges. Do the people of Rwanda have a 2nd amendment for the same reason as the United States?

I am taking this example in Europe of violent groups claiming for independence, indicating that other countries actually have problems you are speculating, and do not resort to the extreme solution advocated, namely have everybody armed, although for them, the problem is not speculative. It seems interesting to me, the depth of the cultural gap we have here. In addition, I thought informative to mention this person who has seriously dedicated his entire life to politics because of violence in his childhood he was victim of. I wish I could get in contact with him right now, because I know he would be fond of explaining his position, and he would do it much better than me, I can tell you he is tailor made for politics If there is any situation you can name which would be better suited scenario to back up the claim that we need to be armed to defend ourselves, I'd like to hear it. This wildness reaches unimaginable levels. So how come, how is it possible that somebody who went through this could advocate gun (and weapons in general) ban ? And entire regions of Europe do the same, although they suffered from those local groups for decades.

I honestly don't think you appreciate what would happen in the USA if the government tried to do anything like your stories to its citizens. The people here would literally get their guns and start shooting at government people. I really don't care if this friend of yours likes guns or not, it means nothing to me nor to the situation. Also, people in the USA have had guns for hundreds of years and they don't run around killing each other in RWANDA. I mean, come on. This analogy is pitiful.

Do you see the swiss running around killing each other?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This thread keeps veering off-topic.

Here's the topic:

Do more law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns make us more secure or less secure?

A) Advantages of more citizens carrying legal handguns.
B) Disadvantages of more individuals owning legal handguns.
C) Tasers/pepper spray are a better answer to personal protection concerns. Yes? No?

Please stay on this. Thank you.



Jordan.

Did you read my earlier post describing situations that I see as sensible use of arms for protection?

Are you only focusing on people carrying handguns in public? I don't think that's a significant worry personally. Most places you can't unless you have a special permit which are often hard to obtain. Perhaps you live in an area where they aren't so hard to get though?
Aswell it has been my experience that most people don't want guns for carrying in public. I've met many people who own them and only a handful that carry, and they're usually cops or ex cops. My old supervisor was ex Compton PD and kept his gun in a locked case in his car. A friend's father was a vietnam vet and always kept his guns at home except when he had to get to work during the LA riots. In that case he loaded his handgun and placed it in pain sight on the passenger seat of his car, mostly to act as a deterant. The police stopped him at a check point and noted the gun. He told them it was loaded, who he was, where he was going, and they nodded him through.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Did you read my earlier post describing situations that I see as sensible use of arms for protection?

Are you only focusing on people carrying handguns in public? I don't think that's a significant worry personally. Most places you can't unless you have a special permit which are often hard to obtain. Perhaps you live in an area where they aren't so hard to get though?
Aswell it has been my experience that most people don't want guns for carrying in public. I've met many people who own them and only a handful that carry, and they're usually cops or ex cops. My old supervisor was ex Compton PD and kept his gun in a locked case in his car. A friend's father was a vietnam vet and always kept his guns at home except when he had to get to work during the LA riots. In that case he loaded his handgun and placed it in pain sight on the passenger seat of his car, mostly to act as a deterant. The police stopped him at a check point and noted the gun. He told them it was loaded, who he was, where he was going, and they nodded him through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#New_York

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYCCL.pdf

OMG! I thought NYC had a handgun ban! Turns out is a ban on a specific kind of handgun:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html

Man, I wonder how many people I've sat next to on the subway were packing heat. Well, maybe I can relax a bit since I haven't witnessed any gun related violence yet (but plenty of non-gun related violence). Dear Lord, the New York Post would make you believe people were getting shot at every day.

Time to get myself a taser?



Jordan.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#New_York

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYCCL.pdf

OMG! I thought NYC had a handgun ban! Turns out is a ban on a specific kind of handgun:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html

Man, I wonder how many people I've sat next to on the subway were packing heat. Well, maybe I can relax a bit since I haven't witnessed any gun related violence yet (but plenty of non-gun related violence). Dear Lord, the New York Post would make you believe people were getting shot at every day.

I looked through the laws in your NRA link. It seems that it is difficult to get a conceal and carry permit. At least it reads that way but in practice it may not be so hard. So at least you can be assured that people carrying are unlikely doing so legally. Probably not much assurance for you.

Time to get myself a taser?

I forgot to mention tasers and such. I certainly would agree that non-lethal weapons are quite preferable to carrying guns. I think that eventually they will produce much better non-lethal devices for protection but in the mean time those that you and I have access to are not terribly effective. They certainly are better than nothing and work to some degree. Pepper spray and mace are tricky and could wind up hindering you if you're not careful about how you use it. It requires a level of attention to your environment (direction of wind and such) that your average person does not have and will have a hard time considering in the middle of a confrontation. Long range tasers won't always get to skin and be really effective. Same with stunguns which also require close quarters for use which is not always daunting to a criminal. Aswell all of these may be ineffective against persons who are on drugs such as meth or pcp.

There is also the same issue with non-lethal weapons as with lethal, that they can be turned against you or be used by the criminals themselves(and especially in the hands of an assailant they go from non-lethal to potentially crippling or deadly).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/30/ukcrime.ukguns
And that's in the UK where they have fewer violent crimes.

 

[Cyrus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#New_York

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYCCL.pdf

OMG! I thought NYC had a handgun ban! Turns out is a ban on a specific kind of handgun:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html

Man, I wonder how many people I've sat next to on the subway were packing heat. Well, maybe I can relax a bit since I haven't witnessed any gun related violence yet (but plenty of non-gun related violence). Dear Lord, the New York Post would make you believe people were getting shot at every day.

Time to get myself a taser?



Jordan.

Whats up with your constant sensationalism? You don't live in downtown Baghdad Iraq...

If your really this paranoid, you might want to talk to a psychiatrist.

 

[devil-fire]

I honestly don't think you appreciate what would happen in the USA if the government tried to do anything like your stories to its citizens. The people here would literally get their guns and start shooting at government people. I really don't care if this friend of yours likes guns or not, it means nothing to me nor to the situation. Also, people in the USA have had guns for hundreds of years and they don't run around killing each other in RWANDA. I mean, come on. This analogy is pitiful.

It sounds quite silly to refer to what would happen if the military tried to preform some kind of revolutionary coup. I don't think American soldiers would shoot on American civilians and I don't think American civilians would start an insurgency against the government. Unlike Afghanistan that has had anti-government militias for decades, and unlike Iraq that has had huge divides along ethic lines and a battle hardened disbanded military, the USA has soldiers and hobby militias.

First off, despite the KKK saying they are going to start an armed resistance if a black becomes president, the social structure in the USA is vary stable compared to anywhere in the world with outlaw anti-government militias running around (the KKK might say they are an anti-government militia, but they still have permits for most of their guns). Secondly, if the military in the USA were to try to pull off a coup for whatever reason in the foreseeable future, the anti-government forces of consequence would be defectors, not duck hunters or yuppies with hand guns.

 

[sketchtrack]

I think a cultural gap may be one reason for differences in opinion. If you live in NYC, then you've got thousands of strangers around you all the time, and you don't know, or trust anyone. The mentality in big cities can be kind of dog eat dog as well.

I live in a semi rural area, and there is no subway or anything.

You probably feel it is like every man for himself, and everyone is against you, so if people are aloud guns then there will be more of them with guns, and you will feel further threatened by all of these unknown people who may be packing.

I honestly actually don't even have a permit to carry a gun, and I never have carried a gun in public, I am only worried more about getting robbed in my home because it happens around here kind of a lot.

The point is that I don't think that there is a strong enough fact based argument that we should have a gun ban. If someone who knows what they are doing needs to have personal protection or to protect loved ones, the I think they should not be denied that right, especially because they have already showed that they are such model citizens with such a clean record. Maybe people should have also mental evaluation periodically if they are to have concealed weapons permits.

If you are to argue that guns all together should be confiscated, then I think that goes way to far.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you are to argue that guns all together should be confiscated, then I think that goes way to far.

So does the Supreme Court. Legally, this matter is settled: We have a Constitutional right to own guns.

 

[Gokul43201]

We have a Constitutional right to own guns.

I don't know if that's exactly correct. What the Court said is that we have a right to own arms so long we are not felons and we can demonstrate that we are mentally sound at the time that we are purchasing the arms. The Constitution did not provide for any exceptions (on grounds of felony conviction, mental illness or anything else).

As for the matter being settled, that depends on what the "matter" is. For instance, there is nothing in the SC ruling that prevents DC from regulating exactly when and where you may take your handgun.

Furthermore, I don't understand how it is Constitutional for some states (or even the whole country) to ban assault weapons if the Second Amendment is is to be interpreted as the SC just did. Assault weapons are also arms (and they're actually more useful if you want to form a "well regulated militia" or protect yourself from a gang of thugs).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know if that's exactly correct. What the Court said is that we have a right to own arms so long we are not felons and we can demonstrate that we are mentally sound at the time that we are purchasing the arms. The Constitution did not provide for any exceptions (on grounds of felony conviction, mental illness or anything else).

I agree. There are limits just as with any right. This will be the point of contention for decades to come - clearly defining those limits. But the interpretation of the Second Ammendment was made clear in that it does apply to individuals.

We have the right to free speach, but we still can't yell fire in a crowded theater [well, unless there IS a fire ].

 

[sketchtrack]

That is the same as all our rights. When you are a felon, then as punishment some of your rights are stripped.

 

[B. Elliott]

Furthermore, I don't understand how it is Constitutional for some states (or even the whole country) to ban assault weapons if the Second Amendment is is to be interpreted as the SC just did. Assault weapons are also arms (and they're actually more useful if you want to form a "well regulated militia" or protect yourself from a gang of thugs).

I believe (I never really looked into it) based upon my experience with firearms, that it comes down to the ability of one to properly maintain control of the firearm, where a typical single-shot or semi-automatic is easier to control where you place the shot. Someone who has a fully automatic weapon, if encountering a stressful situation, may be more prone to shoot off-the-mark shots and run a greater risk of collateral damage.

Again, I'm not 100% sure, but with my experience that's a good reason. I personally have no use for a fully automatic weapon.

 

[B. Elliott]

Also, just add since I didn't cover this in the previous post, almost all semi-automatics (those classified as assault weapons) can be easily converted to fully automatic. That's primarily why you can have a semi-auto pistol, but not a semi-auto AK-47... which can be converted to fully auto.