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

[Ivan Seeking]

That is usually up to the states. For example, some states refuse felons the right to vote, others believe voting is too fundamental a right to strip from anyone, felon or not. Apparently, no state believes gun ownership is sufficiently fundamental to deny it to felons. Also, when states deny gun ownership to the mentally handicapped the argument is that it is too dangerous to allow it, despite the fact that mentally handicapped people are now denied their Constitutional right to bear arms. It's okay to ignore the Constitution here and there, so long as you are promoting the common good.

It is a matter of recognizing limits. This is essential to any right. If there is sufficient reason to remove a right because someone poses a clear and unique threat to the common good, such as armed felons might, then there may be just cause to limit rights. But for example, if a person is a law abiding citizen, their right to vote cannot be denied. And unless someone is inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded thearter, their right to free speach cannot be denied.

 

[Gokul43201]

You are saying that as long as we can own any arms, the Constitutional requirement is met?

That's the only strictly consistent way of interpreting the words of the Second Amendment. Surely, it can not be understood to mean that individuals possesses the right to bear all imaginable forms of arms from pointy toothpicks to assault rifles to nuclear tipped missiles, because then we'd already be in violation of the Constitution for banning many of these. But what the SC did was neither - they decided to make a ruling based on fashion trends.

Most people seem to like handguns, so handguns shall be protected. Not so many people are crazy about assault rifles and few can afford missiles, so I couldn't care if you banned them.

Some might fret it's too bad that tasers aren't the in thing yet.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is a matter of recognizing limits. This is essential to any right. If there is sufficient reason to remove a right because someone poses a clear and unique threat to the common good, such as armed felons might, then there may be just cause to limit rights.

And so long as we don't have an objective means of parametrizing what constitutes a clear and unique threat we will have rulings that are based on gut feelings and the whims of the judges.

 

[turbo]

To see how the law is interpreted in light of the Constitution, it is necessary to revisit the history of the country and make the interpretation based on the perceptions of the founders. You must realize that England forced colonial males of military-service age to bear arms, train, pass muster, and be available for call-up. They were also required to maintain armories with inventories of ball, shot, powder, flints, etc so that they could be pressed into service on very short notice (in lieu of a huge standing army) if the need arose. Many farmers, businessmen, craftsmen, etc were forced to drop their personal affairs and fight on behalf of the crown in Nova Scotia, Hudson Valley, etc during the French and Indian wars.

The Constitution was drawn up in a time in which it was required that men of service age maintain arms. It was drawn up with specific language that did not extend this requirement as a matter of law, but forbade the government from limiting the right of the populace to be suitably armed. After overthrowing one government to form another, the founding fathers did not envision that the government that they crafted must necessarily be permanent and always benevolent. Their intent was clear - the populace had the right to be well-armed and vigilant against tyranny. The SC decision in this case was the correct one, IMO.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

So, it's just a relative argument. Automatic weapons are more capable of eliminating hostile threats than handguns but also more prone to the risk of collateral damage. Handguns are less capable of eliminating hostile threats than machine guns, but also less likely to cause collateral damage. Toothpicks are less capable than handguns at ensuring your safety, but are virtually incapable of producing collateral damage.

Why do we choose to draw the line between handguns and assault rifles rather than toothpicks and handguns? The Second Amendment provides us with no guidance for making this decision. The courts just go with what seems reasonable to them at the time. If the folks on the court like to have handguns, then they rule accordingly.

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.

And I, personally, have no use for a handgun, but my neighbor is inseparable from his shoulder slung AR-15. If the three of us were judges, we'd have a hard time agreeing on where to draw that line.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Constitution was drawn up in a time in which it was required that men of service age maintain arms. It was drawn up with specific language that did not extend this requirement as a matter of law, but forbade the government from limiting the right of the populace to be suitably armed. After overthrowing one government to form another, the founding fathers did not envision that the government that they crafted must necessarily be permanent and always benevolent. Their intent was clear - the populace had the right to be well-armed and vigilant against tyranny.

And you don't think a handful of 13-year-old hackers are more capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government than an angry mob waving their pistols at a line of Abrams tanks?

 

[turbo]

And you don't think a handful of 13-year-old hackers are more capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government than an angry mob waving their pistols at a line of Abrams tanks?

Nope. The government is hardened against hacks and can shut down the Internet at will, if necessary. As long as the government cannot jam ham channels and cannot stop the flow of information through other means, they can clamp down pretty hard, but it would be tough for a military force to take and hold huge portions of the country that are populated by hunters, sharpshooters, etc. My favorite rifle is a single-shot .45-70. Accurate as all get-out. This was a round popularized in the late 1800's as the standard military round because it was so accurate and hard-hitting. The US, Iraq, Iran and a lot of other countries have standardized on lighter rounds that are light and fast. An asymmetrical answer to that strategy is to use rounds that are very heavy and deliver a punch that the human body cannot absorb with modern body armor. Our military planners are not idiots, but they have blind spots that scream for attention.

 

[B. Elliott]

So, it's just a relative argument. Automatic weapons are more capable of eliminating hostile threats than handguns but also more prone to the risk of collateral damage. Handguns are less capable of eliminating hostile threats than machine guns, but also less likely to cause collateral damage. Toothpicks are less capable than handguns at ensuring your safety, but are virtually incapable of producing collateral damage.

Why do we choose to draw the line between handguns and assault rifles rather than toothpicks and handguns? The Second Amendment provides us with no guidance for making this decision. The courts just go with what seems reasonable to them at the time. If the folks on the court like to have handguns, then they rule accordingly.

And I, personally, have no use for a handgun, but my neighbor is inseparable from his shoulder slung AR-15. If the three of us were judges, we'd have a hard time agreeing on where to draw that line.

I do see your point and I must say that you did very good job of explaining it. It does come down to how you interpret the wording as even someones fist could also be considered a weapon, or a spoon, or even a soft drink can. Then again there's many other issues that also seem contradictory, such as free speech vs. slander.

For me, it comes down to the simple conclusion that getting rid of some guns will not get rid of all guns. I would rather be caught with than without.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm sure this is getting way off topic, and deep into fantasy, but what would you (turbo, not Elliott) do if your tyrannical government announces that anytime someone takes a shot at government personnel, they will carpet bomb a 100 sq-mi radius around that person?

Modern governments have much more powerful checks to prevent tyranny than arming the mobs with pistols.

 

[Evo]

And so long as we don't have an objective means of parametrizing what constitutes a clear and unique threat we will have rulings that are based on gut feelings and the whims of the judges.

I couldn't agree more. Funny, I was just reading about this as far as interpreting Constitutional Law. It changes due to what is "more popular" as pushed by special interest groups or the media.

 

[B. Elliott]

Or how about free speech vs. freedom of religion?

 

[Gokul43201]

I wonder which SC judges own guns and which ones don't. I'd personally be inclined to give more credibility to the judges that own a gun and agreed with the ban as well as judges that do not own but disagreed. The others (and they may all belong in the "others" category) have a personal stake in the ruling, directly or indirectly. After all, their office building lies smack in the middle of DC.

 

[Cyrus]

To see how the law is interpreted in light of the Constitution, it is necessary to revisit the history of the country and make the interpretation based on the perceptions of the founders. You must realize that England forced colonial males of military-service age to bear arms, train, pass muster, and be available for call-up. They were also required to maintain armories with inventories of ball, shot, powder, flints, etc so that they could be pressed into service on very short notice (in lieu of a huge standing army) if the need arose. Many farmers, businessmen, craftsmen, etc were forced to drop their personal affairs and fight on behalf of the crown in Nova Scotia, Hudson Valley, etc during the French and Indian wars.

The Constitution was drawn up in a time in which it was required that men of service age maintain arms. It was drawn up with specific language that did not extend this requirement as a matter of law, but forbade the government from limiting the right of the populace to be suitably armed. After overthrowing one government to form another, the founding fathers did not envision that the government that they crafted must necessarily be permanent and always benevolent. Their intent was clear - the populace had the right to be well-armed and vigilant against tyranny. The SC decision in this case was the correct one, IMO.

I agree with everything you said, and I'd like to add one point. Notice even you yourself did not mention the use of guns for personal protection. I'm still not seeing where personal protection is entering the picture anywhere.

 

[turbo]

I agree with everything you said, and I'd like to add one point. Notice even you yourself did not mention the use of guns for personal protection. I'm still not seeing where personal protection is entering the picture anywhere.

In the colonies, it was presumed that one would have to have firearms for personal protection - the requirements of the crown were designed to make militias keep additional stocks of shot, ball, powder, flints, etc so that the populace could act as a fast-response military force whenever needed. The founders of the Constitution were not ignorant of this motivation, nor would they have considered that the citizenry must be formally accepted into some sort of local militia in order to have a "right" to own a firearm.

 

[Cyrus]

In the colonies, it was presumed that one would have to have firearms for personal protection - the requirements of the crown were designed to make militias keep additional stocks of shot, ball, powder, flints, etc so that the populace could act as a fast-response military force whenever needed. The founders of the Constitution were not ignorant of this motivation, nor would they have considered that the citizenry must be formally accepted into some sort of local militia in order to have a "right" to own a firearm.

Still agree with you, but from what I am reading it seems like were both saying the same thing. I agrue that we should all have military grade weapons (fully auto M203s) in every house, but that they are ONLY for militia purposes. I.e., NOT personal protection for home invation. This wasnt the intention of the founding fathers for keeping the populace armed, and based on what you are writting it too seems in line with what I argue.

The police have guns to protect you. You have guns to protect your liberty. The two are exclusive.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm sure this is getting way off topic, and deep into fantasy, but what would you (turbo, not Elliott) do if your tyrannical government announces that anytime someone takes a shot at government personnel, they will carpet bomb a 100 sq-mi radius around that person?

Do you think that is at all logical? See my post regarding destruction of infrastructure and the burden of a population of vagrant survivors. Such an action makes no sense.

So it comes down to what's in vogue. It's okay to deny me my Constitutional rights only if my tastes are completely out of fashion.

While perhaps his wording is poor I believe that the idea is that a handgun is the most practical, not fashionable, choice for use by common persons. So assuming that the common person has the right to possesses arms it is not sensible to ban the most practical choice of arms. Of course you may not agree that it's the most practical but my point is that he was not likely referring to "what's in vogue".

 

[Jordan Joab]

While searching which SC Justices own handguns I found the following articles:

Article by Arthur Kellermann on washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702864.html

"Guns Used in Crime" by the U.S. Department of Justice, July 1995
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

"Gun Violence in the U.S." Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention report
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

"Firearms Death by Intent" U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

"CRS Report for Congress" Congressional Research Reports for the People (opencrs.com) January 25, 2007
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20070125.pdf

"Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Feel free to reach your own conclusions.



Jordan.

 

[turbo]

The police have guns to protect you. You have guns to protect your liberty. The two are exclusive.

They are NOT exclusive. Those who would argue for such an exclusion would steal back the right to bear arms under the pretense that it is a collective right granted only for the government (not citizens) to be armed, and only for specific reasons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's the only strictly consistent way of interpreting the words of the Second Amendment. Surely, it can not be understood to mean that individuals possesses the right to bear all imaginable forms of arms from pointy toothpicks to assault rifles to nuclear tipped missiles, because then we'd already be in violation of the Constitution for banning many of these. But what the SC did was neither - they decided to make a ruling based on fashion trends.

Most people seem to like handguns, so handguns shall be protected. Not so many people are crazy about assault rifles and few can afford missiles, so I couldn't care if you banned them.

Some might fret it's too bad that tasers aren't the in thing yet.

This has to be taken into context from the time. What was the meaning of "arms" when the Constitution was written? Clearly they could not speak to the existence of nuclear weapons, or tasers, or machine guns for that matter. Nor did they exclude any existing weapon of the time. So it is clear that they meant firearms.

Personally, I would like to see machine guns made legal. The violent criminals can get them anyway.

Tsu and I once found ourselves lying on the floor while the police were shooting it out across the stree with people armed with rapid-fire weapons. That wasn't long before we decided to leave LA.

 

[Cyrus]

They are NOT exclusive. Those who would argue for such an exclusion would steal back the right to bear arms under the pretense that it is a collective right granted only for the government (not citizens) to be armed, and only for specific reasons.

I don't follow. By what I stated, no one would be unarmed. They would be armed for the specific reason stated in the constitution.

 

[Gokul43201]

This has to be taken into context from the time. What was the meaning of "arms" when the Constitution was written? Clearly they could not speak to the existence of nuclear weapons, or tasers, or machine guns for that matter. Nor did they exclude any existing weapon of the time. So it is clear that they meant firearms.

Why should it be taken in the context of what the framers had at their time rather than all the things that the framers would expect us to have in our time? Does the First Amendment grant the freedom of press only so long as it is limited to newspapers? Can Scientology be banned because it didn't because it didn't exist in the 18th Century? No we expect the framers had the intelligence to foresee that technology and society would change over time and their words would need to be interpreted in the context of our times, not in the context of theirs.

 

[sketchtrack]

Why should it be taken in the context of what the framers had at their time rather than all the things that the framers would expect us to have in our time? Does the First Amendment grant the freedom of press only so long as it is limited to newspapers? Can Scientology be banned because it didn't because it didn't exist in the 18th Century? No we expect the framers had the intelligence to foresee that technology and society would change over time and their words would need to be interpreted in the context of our times, not in the context of theirs.

They have laws, and then they have the Bill of Rights. Laws are intended to be written according to new context, if and only if they are within the boundaries of the constitution.

The founding fathers knew that if there was no bill of rights, then your rights could be stripped at any means so long as a court rules it so. The bill of rights is what makes you free. Name another country that has a bill of rights for individuals.

The idea of throwing it out by means of popular demand goes against the very core concept of the country which is only such a great country because we have those rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why should it be taken in the context of what the framers had at their time rather than all the things that the framers would expect us to have in our time? Does the First Amendment grant the freedom of press only so long as it is limited to newspapers? Can Scientology be banned because it didn't because it didn't exist in the 18th Century? No we expect the framers had the intelligence to foresee that technology and society would change over time and their words would need to be interpreted in the context of our times, not in the context of theirs.

How could the framers possibly anticipate something like a nuclear weapon? I don't understand the logic here. There have always been many religious beliefs, but a nuclear bomb was a whole new concept.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To me, it is most important that law abiding citizens are effectively a militia. So it becomes a question of what weapons are needed in order to ensure that a corrupt government can be overthrown.

Don't many Swiss keep automatic weapons in their homes? What is the crime rate in Switzerland/

 

[humanino]

Don't many Swiss keep automatic weapons in their homes?

Gun politics in Switzerland (wiki)

The gun policy in Switzerland is unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations. This, in addition to liberal gun laws and strong shooting traditions, has led to a very high gun count per capita. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.

What is the crime rate in Switzerland/

Gun crime (wiki)

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop. (Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000)
Switzerland : 0.56
Unites States :2.97

Disclaimer
"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."

My guess : a factor more than 5 cannot be washed out anyway.

edit
Cyrus claimed to be swiss once if I remember !

 

[Gokul43201]

How could the framers possibly anticipate something like a nuclear weapon? I don't understand the logic here. There have always been many religious beliefs, but a nuclear bomb was a whole new concept.

Is the internet a whole new concept? Can we restrict freedom of press or expression if it's on TV or the internet, just because the framers would never have foreseen it? (That was rhetorical - I know how the court ruled on Reno v. ACLU)

But never mind nuclear tipped missiles. We happily allow bans on machine guns. And, to my knowledge, the states (CA< NY< NJ< etc.) haven't been taken to the courts for this ban. So what gives?

 

[Cyrus]

Gun politics in Switzerland (wiki)


Gun crime (wiki)

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop. (Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000)
Switzerland : 0.56
Unites States :2.97

Disclaimer
"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."

My guess : a factor more than 5 cannot be washed out anyway.

edit
Cyrus claimed to be swiss once if I remember !

Good memory! My grandfather is swiss-german.

 

[Gear300]

If we didn't have the right to bear arms, then I think there might be an imbalance between domestic security and people. Government institutions on local levels would also have to withdraw arms (and if we leave arms to state and federal institutions, the imbalance becomes relatively severe). Not to mention, its not that hard to smuggle in guns. I also doubt guns have a highly influential effect on crime (it is influential, but not severely influential). To bear arms seems alright to me.

I do not think guns would make people feel safer, but neither would the withdrawal of guns. Whether one feels safe or not depends on the level of paranoia (I guess)...its psychological (after all, there is always something to fear).

 

[sketchtrack]

Say you live in the woods, and a rabid raccoon is coming right at you. Say a mountain lion has a persons face in there mouth. Perhaps a bear is charging you. Just because some people live in the inner city doesn't mean that the constitution should cater to their wants. If guns were banned, then it would no longer be safe to go into Alaska.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is the internet a whole new concept? Can we restrict freedom of press or expression if it's on TV or the internet, just because the framers would never have foreseen it? (That was rhetorical - I know how the court ruled on Reno v. ACLU)

The internet is merely another means of conveying speech. There is no explicit and immediate threat to the common good.

But never mind nuclear tipped missiles. We happily allow bans on machine guns. And, to my knowledge, the states (CA< NY< NJ< etc.) haven't been taken to the courts for this ban. So what gives?

I agree, this is inconsistent and should be corrected.

IMO, this is the belief that lies at the core of the objections to personal weapons: We don't need them anymore.

This is the false sense of security: The fairytale that we are now so civilized that have no need for citizens to be well armed. In fact, when you think about it, the violence that motivates laws against gun ownership is proof that we still need a well-armed, law abiding population.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.