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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jordan Joab
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Security
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of gun ownership on personal safety and gun violence prevention, particularly in the context of teaching gun safety in schools. Participants explore various perspectives on the effectiveness of firearms for self-defense and the societal impacts of increased gun ownership.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how handgun ownership contributes to personal safety, likening it to ineffective protective measures.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for increased illegal gun supply resulting from higher legal gun ownership.
  • Participants argue that the presence of a gun may not guarantee safety in a mugging situation, suggesting that it could escalate violence instead.
  • Others assert that having a gun could provide a sense of security and the ability to defend oneself, citing anecdotal evidence of successful self-defense cases.
  • Some express a belief that only law enforcement should carry handguns, arguing that more handguns in public could lead to increased danger.
  • There are claims that laws restricting gun ownership may leave law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals who do not follow the law.
  • Participants discuss the practicality of handguns compared to rifles and shotguns for personal defense, noting ease of storage and accessibility.
  • One participant references studies suggesting that states with increased gun ownership have seen drops in violent crime, though this is contested by others who highlight the risks of self-defense attempts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on gun ownership and its implications for safety, with no consensus reached on the effectiveness of firearms in preventing violence or ensuring personal safety.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the motivations and behaviors of criminals, the effectiveness of self-defense, and the societal impacts of gun laws, which remain unresolved.

  • #121
sketchtrack said:
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.

Er, I have been robbed at gunpoint and things did go smoother. Had I tried to do a chuck norris to a guy with a pistol on my head, I'd probably be dead right now...I don't think your advice is good.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
Holocene said:
Um, maybe because you can defend yourself imediately? Or, you can call the cops, and they'll eventually show up to investigate your death.

Why do you call the cops when your in trouble in the first place anyways? Because they have guns!
 
  • #123
sketchtrack said:
Why do you call the cops when your in trouble in the first place anyways? Because they have guns!

...? Because they have legal authority to kill people and you dont.
 
  • #124
Cyrus said:
Er, I have been robbed at gunpoint and things did go smoother. Had I tried to do a chuck norris to a guy with a pistol on my head, I'd probably be dead right now...I don't think your advice is good.

Exactly so there are instances in which it is smart to not pull a gun and times when it is best to pull a gun. Were you frisked by your robber? Don't you think you could have made the determination wether it was worth it to use a gun or not at the time? Why should the government deny us our right to make choices which directly determine our own survival or the survival of our loved ones?
 
  • #125
Cyrus said:
...? Because they have legal authority to kill people and you dont.

You do if it is in self defense
 
  • #126
sketchtrack said:
Why do you call the cops when your in trouble in the first place anyways? Because they have guns!

The police exist to deter crime, and when a crime has been committed, they exist to clean up the mess.

Expecting the police to protect you in a grave moment of need is preposterous, and potentiality lethal.
 
  • #127
sketchtrack said:
Exactly so there are instances in which it is smart to not pull a gun and times when it is best to pull a gun. Were you frisked by your robber? Don't you think you could have made the determination wether it was worth it to use a gun or not at the time? Why should the government deny us our right to make choices which directly determine our own survival or the survival of our loved ones?

Buddy, you have never been robbed in your life. There isn't any time to think, hmmmmmm should I do a back flip, karate chop the gun out of his hand, and then shoot him with my piece. When someone puts a gun to the back of your head you say here is my wallet.
 
  • #128
sketchtrack said:
You do if it is in self defense

You want to trust the legal system that your claim of self defense is going to work? I don't want anything to do with the legal system...innocent people go to jail all the time. This is absurd.
 
  • #129
Sure, but what about if they kick down your door and you are in the bedroom. You hear them brutally beating your wife with a bat. You can't just pop out and say here is my money in that circumstance.
 
  • #130
Cyrus said:
You want to trust the legal system that your claim of self defense is going to work? I don't want anything to do with the legal system...innocent people go to jail all the time. This is absurd.

If my life depended on it then I wouldn't have a choice but to take that chance.
 
  • #131
sketchtrack said:
If your life depends on it then I wouldn't have a choice but to take that chance.

You won't live long and will die for a stupid $50 bucks in your pocket. In all seriousness, you think its some easy citizen hero scenario where you apprehend the bad guy...its not. You try that in real life and your going to get shot in the back of the head with no mercy.
 
Last edited:
  • #132
Cyrus said:
You want to trust the legal system that your claim of self defense is going to work? I don't want anything to do with the legal system...innocent people go to jail all the time. This is absurd.

"Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6".
 
  • #133
Holocene said:
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.
Sure, your sound argument strikes me with brightness. And it is clearly proven by those stupid countries where guns are banned altogether, and which have such a higher rate of criminality than the US.

Hey, this is natural selection after all : it is all good that those stupid countries face consequences of their stupid misconceptions.
 
  • #134
My point is that having the right to own a firearm doesn't mean you are required to use it as defense under all circumstances. It is just one of many tools you use if its need is required.
 
  • #135
Holocene said:
"Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6".

No, ask any lawyer. The you want NOTHING to do with the us legal system if you can avoid it.
 
  • #136
sketchtrack said:
My point is that having the right to own a firearm doesn't mean you are required to use it as defense under all circumstances. It is just one of many tools you use if its need is required.

Yeah, but I am still waiting for someone to show me where the 2nd amendment talks about personal protection on the streets.
 
  • #137
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States of AmericaThis article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
Other countries · Law Portal
view • talk • edit
U.S. Firearms
Legal Topics
Assault weapons ban
ATF (law enforcement)
Brady Handgun Act
Federal Firearms License
Firearm case law
Firearm Owners Protection Act
Gun Control Act of 1968
Gun laws in the U.S. — by state
Gun laws in the U.S. — federal
Gun politics in the U.S.
National Firearms Act
Second Amendment
Straw purchase
Sullivan Act (New York)
Violent Crime Control Act"The Bill of Rights in the National Archives
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possesses and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown that a tyrant's ability to suppress political opponents was accomplished by simply taking away the people's arms.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]"
 
  • #138
Cyrus said:
Yeah, but I am still waiting for someone to show me where the 2nd amendment talks about personal protection on the streets.
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.
 
  • #139
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray

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

Here we have two wonderful items that can be just as effective as a handgun and less lethal. Whereas a handgun is almost guaranteed to kill you, pepper spray and tasers have a lesser chance of being lethal. But no, our society wants more handguns.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of law-abiding citizens carrying handguns in the bus, subway, private cars, public places, etc. in our major cities. Why? Because we are hoping that other individual won't pull out his/her gun when an argument becomes heated over road rage, you stepped on my shoe on the bus/subway, you bumped into me, you stared are me and I didn't like it, I thought you were going to rob me because you are [insert ethnicity here], you called me a [insert racial slur here], and other such wonderful reasons.

Should we allow teachers to carry handguns in our public schools? Bus drivers? Janitors? Street vendors? Taxi drivers? They will claim they need personal protection as well!

I'm not against protecting one's life. I simply do not believe allowing citizens to carry handguns is the way to go. There are better, safer ways to address this problem. Like the two items I linked above.



Jordan.
 
  • #140
sketchtrack said:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States of America


This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
Other countries · Law Portal
view • talk • edit
U.S. Firearms
Legal Topics
Assault weapons ban
ATF (law enforcement)
Brady Handgun Act
Federal Firearms License
Firearm case law
Firearm Owners Protection Act
Gun Control Act of 1968
Gun laws in the U.S. — by state
Gun laws in the U.S. — federal
Gun politics in the U.S.
National Firearms Act
Second Amendment
Straw purchase
Sullivan Act (New York)
Violent Crime Control Act


"The Bill of Rights in the National Archives
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possesses and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown that a tyrant's ability to suppress political opponents was accomplished by simply taking away the people's arms.[3] In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.[4]"

That part in quotes is not from the constitution, is it? I don't know how you got from militia to personal protection.
 
  • #141
sketchtrack said:
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.
 
  • #142
humanino said:
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.
 
  • #143
If I went their with my family, then I would at least hope to have some sort of insurance to use to protect them.
 
  • #144
Cyrus said:
I don't know what Hobbes' Leviathen is.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #145
Cyrus said:
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. ?[/color][/thread]
 
Last edited:
  • #146
A future civil war isn't out of the question.
 
  • #147
GeorginaS said:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html"

Thanks, but I was hoping for a book review, not the actual book! :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #148
humanino said:
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. ?[/color][/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.
 
  • #149
sketchtrack said:
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.
 
  • #150
Cyrus said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K