News Should the 2nd Amendment be reinterpreted for modern times?

[drankin]

And yes, its true everyone having a gun would reduce crime, but i don't think grandma will be carying a pistol as she walks down the street when she gets mugged. although, it would be nice if the people around her might be carrying some.

I don't know, i just think people around here would get to trigger happy and underestimate the deadly force its capable of.

Like I said, responsible adults. That is another issue altogether :) All being said, if, totally hypothetically, if everyone was armed, no one would be throwing their middle finger around... I mean really.

Since I've obtained my license, I've realized that in order to retain my right to carry, I have the right to be CIVIL. All it takes is a single incident of malice including my firearm or the threat of, and I lose my right "to bear arms". We have system for the law abiding citizen and we have a system for those that don't abide. A single domestic midemeanor can take away your right to carry a firearm in this country.

In one of our "districts" you cannot even own a firearm (a Constitutional issue that is currently being disputed in our higher courts.)

 

[BobG]

the swiss can actually pull it off because they are one of the most civilized nations in the world. they are the highest ranked in the least corrupted in the world. Out of all the murder/crimes commited each year, almost all are commited by foreigners. Firing ranges are more common than donut shops and every man is required to have a rifle over a certain age. this is part of the reason why hitler never invaded them, because everyone was armed and it would be one hell of a battle.

At best, the Swiss could have mounted a guerilla war from the mountains. Germany would have still controlled the things most important to them. That wouldn't be a great situation - it would be similar to the Soviets in Afghanistan where the Soviets controlled the cities, but had no hope of controlling the mountain regions. If Germany really foresaw that, then they were definitely the exception. Most countries would invade, anyway, thinking the resistance would have to die out eventually.

The bigger threat was that the Swiss would destroy the railroads between Germany and Italy before they retreated to the mountains. Then Germany would be rebuilding railroads (probably more than once in some places) instead of using them.

Switzerland agreeing to allow Germany and Italy to ship sealed railroad cars across Switzerland that would never be inspected made invasion more trouble than it was worth.

In spite of that, Germany still had invasion plans for Switzerland, but the rest of the war quit going so well, pushing the invasion off to some undetermined time.

 

[BobG]

I can tell you that if an invading force moved into Maine, the sheer number of accurate high-power deer rifles and experienced marksmen would make it very tough for them to hold this area. They might have a great time in areas in which rifles are impractical and handguns are banned, but they would not do well here. A couple of guys flanking a major road with decent guns could deny that road to the enemy, at least during daylight.

I don't think hand guns and deer rifles would pose much of a threat. People in Maine would have better luck if they learned how to make IEDs.

We live in a different world than the one that existed in the late 1700's. I'm not sure how gun rights fit in today.




In the language of the times, the 'bear arms' part definitely referred to serving in the local or state militia. The 'keep' part is the only part of the Second Amendment that provides any hint that the Amendment is intended to extend to individuals as well.

The goal was that the 'national' army would never become more powerful than the state militias. Remember, this was a union of independent states (as in nation states) and each wanted to be sure they could leave if things didn't work out.

That idea died out in the War of 1812 when state militias couldn't prevent the British from burning the national's capitol. Fifty years later, the national army was probably strong enough to repel foreign invaders, but definitely stronger than all of the state militias of the Confederate states combined.

It's hard to figure out how the Second Amendment fits in today all around.

 

[russ_watters]

Drankin suggested that everyone was armed back then, which is generally true. However, who besides you is making the stretch to suggest everyone was part of "the militia", or even that there was some singular "the militia" at that time, and how did you come to those conclusions?

Turbo-1 also suggested it. And besides, again, they are in the same sentence.

I am suggesting that an armed citizenry is necessary to insure the security of a free state. In other words; a government can exercise whatever authority it wants when it's militias have the biggest guns, as a comparably unarmed populace is inherently unfit defend it's freedom against an armed faction determined to oppress them.

Wow, so you pretty much don't buy into the whole "social contract" idea and all that political theory that is the basis for democracy, then? Political power is derived from naked force alone? Wow. I know a lot of people think that way, but wow, that's scary. I would hate to live in a society where that was true.

 

[russ_watters]

The framers of the constitution knew that no form of government was free of corruption, coercion, etc, and they included the 2nd amendment as a way to prevent despotic governments from gaining absolute authority.

I asked the questions before and no one answered:

1. Is such a thing possible in the modern world, with modern weaponry? [see below]
2. Is such a thing necessary in a country with an all-volunteer, ordinary citizen military?
3. Is such a thing necessary in a country where you essentially have a revolution every decade or so anyway?

I can tell you that if an invading force moved into Maine, the sheer number of accurate high-power deer rifles and experienced marksmen would make it very tough for them to hold this area.

What good is a 30-06 against a B-52 or an M1-A1?

Does Viet-Nam ring a bell?

The Vietnam war would have been very different had the North not been armed externally by the USSR. All the same, it is estimated on the low end that about 1.5 million Vietnamese died in that war.

Whether regular army or just a citizen militia, it works the same: you can resist until you are dead. So what kind of conflict are you expecting that would require millions of ordinary citizens to die?

 

[turbo]

I asked the questions before and no one answered:

1. Is such a thing possible in the modern world, with modern weaponry? [see below]
2. Is such a thing necessary in a country with an all-volunteer, ordinary citizen military?
3. Is such a thing necessary in a country where you essentially have a revolution every decade or so anyway?

As the US military knows, the enemy can force you to fight on their terms. A dedicated force with scoped high-power rifles can deny the streets and roads to soldiers that are not confined in armored vehicles. If you are a roof gunner in a Humvee, you would not last long with such sharpshooters hiding in the woods along the road.

What good is a 30-06 against a B-52 or an M1-A1?

No good at all. Nor would B-52's and M1-A1s be useful in detecting and neutralizing sharpshooters.

The Vietnam war would have been very different had the North not been armed externally by the USSR. All the same, it is estimated on the low end that about 1.5 million Vietnamese died in that war.

Whether regular army or just a citizen militia, it works the same: you can resist until you are dead. So what kind of conflict are you expecting that would require millions of ordinary citizens to die?

I am not expecting such a conflict, in part due to the deterrence posed by an armed citizenry. Still it is better to be aware and prepared. Remember, this country tore itself apart 150 years ago, and there is no guarantee that it cannot happen again.

 

[russ_watters]

I am not expecting such a conflict, in part due to the deterrence posed by an armed citizenry.

Really? You don't think the 2500 miles of oceans on either side and the biggest navy in the world has a bigger impact? Bob made some good points there - in American thinking, if the enemy lands on our shores we've already lost.

Still it is better to be aware and prepared.

I would much rather pay professionals to protect the country (I was in the Navy, btw...) than entrust it to disorganized, armed vigilantes.

Remember, this country tore itself apart 150 years ago, and there is no guarantee that it cannot happen again.

Well times are different and the challenges facing our country are different. As Bob pointed out and that wik article discussed, the context in which the 2nd amendment was written is far different from today:

-Today we wouldn't think about going without a standing army.
-When the 2nd amendment was written, despotic rule was the fear and the US Constitution an experiment. Since the first try failed, there was a real and reasonable fear that that one would too.
-Slavery was an extremely divisive issue that was written into the Constitution, filling it with contradictions. The Constitution has no such flaw today and as a result, the regional divisiveness does not exist.

I'm not anti-gun per se. I just think that it is reasonable to reevaluate the point and purpose of the 2nd amendment to make sure it fits with the context of how the country/world works today.

 

[kyleb]

Turbo-1 also suggested it.

Ah, Turbo-1 suggested that all male citizens of age were required to serve England. But obviously, if our founders held that true, there would have been no revolution at all.

And besides, again, they are in the same sentence.

Heh, one could form all sorts of absurd arguments by that standard. For example sake would you like me to quote some sentences from you and rearrange your wording to accuse you of stating things you most certainly did not claim?

Wow, so you pretty much don't buy into the whole "social contract" idea and all that political theory that is the basis for democracy, then?

I most certainly do believe in those principles. But apparently unlike you, I recognize the necessity to have the means to defend ourselves from those who don't.

Political power is derived from naked force alone?

Not at all, just power is derived from the consent of the governed just as our Declaration of Independence states, but that consent can easily be usurped by an unmatched force.

Wow. I know a lot of people think that way, but wow, that's scary. I would hate to live in a society where that was true.

Are you so scared by armed conflict that you would rather live in a society oppressed by a militant faction than take up arms against such threats to our freedoms?

 

[kyleb]

Really? You don't think the 2500 miles of oceans on either side and the biggest navy in the world has a bigger impact?

That does nothing to stop domestic forces from operating unregulated upon us, only an armed citizenry can stand against that threat.

 

[denverdoc]

To me the most telling policy indication occurred in Waco, TX. Collect too many weapons in one spot, and we will wipe you off the planet. And no an armed citizenty with handgums and rifles might work in Iraq, bt not here anymore--if it were a true insurgency, things would be get interesting. Clearly Cheney was willing to knock jets from the sky and was ordering same w/o much info on the situation.

 

[turbo]

To me the most telling policy indication occurred in Waco, TX. Collect too many weapons in one spot, and we will wipe you off the planet. And no an armed citizenty with handgums and rifles might work in Iraq, bt not here anymore--if it were a true insurgency, things would be get interesting. Clearly Cheney was willing to knock jets from the sky and was ordering same w/o much info on the situation.

A concentration of weapons (legal or not) is easy to target. A diffuse distribution of weapons is not only hard to identify, but very difficult to target and impossible to remove without causing significant damage.

Note: Cheney should never be allowed to handle a firearm again unless he is willing to attend and pass a course in hunter safety and also successfully completes a course centered around the dangers of alcohol and shooting. The fact that the organizers of the "hunt" managed to sequester Cheney after the shooting and shield him from inquiry speaks volumes about his condition and his competence. Normal citizens would have been facing charges of negligence after shooting someone in the face at close range.

 

[denverdoc]

I almost brought that up. I ws listening to a book--the author said both cheney and bush were both indisposed that fateful day and DC took 30' to find. I contrasted the situation with mine, Typicaly 0 to 15 minutes.

 

[Anttech]

LOL, a typical view of American's as "cowboys". This is not American reality my friend. I live here and would have zero problem with the idea of every responsible adult carrying a semi-automatic handgun (preferably made in Germany) with them at all times in public. They would be exercising their right in most of our states. And would make for a more polite, civilized existence, IMO. There are those who prey on those that believe the police will always be there to protect them. But typically the police are only there to clean up and make a report. Ultimately, your personal well being is solely your personal responsiblitity. This is something I love about this country :)

Wasnt it Nash that came up with game theory, which is based around the greed and selfishness of people. Thats the whole idea behind pure capitalism. Wearing a gun is just an extension of this. If you want to believe you don't live in a *community* and you have the right to only think of yourself and protect only you, rather than the community then wear a Gun and provoke everyone around you.

Guns don't beifit the community on the whole, just certain individual.

 

[SticksandStones]

I'm all for letting people have guns, but one shouldn't be allowed to keep a gun in their house or on their property if children under the age of 18 live there.

 

[turbo]

I'm all for letting people have guns, but one shouldn't be allowed to keep a gun in their house or on their property if children under the age of 18 live there.

That's unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted. Guns and ammunition that are stored separately under lock and key with trigger locks are very safe. Also, children should be taken to the range when they are old enough and be taught how to handle firearms safely. When I was about 10 my dad taught me how to field strip, clean, lubricate and reassemble his M1 carbine. When I could do it practically blindfolded while handling the gun with respect and with full awareness of muzzle direction, he took me to a local sand pit and taught me how to load the clips, how to chamber a round manually, how to sight on the target, and finally, how to release the safety and fire the gun accurately. After every lesson, I verified that the gun was empty, packed the clips and ammunition boxes, and when we got home, I broke out the cleaning rod brushes, rags and oil, and cleaned the gun thoroughly before putting it away. I never handled guns without permission until I was old enough (maybe 15 or so) to go to the sandpit myself after school with my own .22 rifle and practice. Although I learned to shoot initially with a semi-automatic carbine (the M1), discipline was drilled into me, and for decades I have hunted with either a lever-action Winchester loaded with a single round or my single-shot Ruger rifle. I will not take a shot at a deer unless it is a guaranteed kill.

Some non-gun/anti-gun people like to characterize gun owners as macho, aggressive, etc. This is far from the case. My nearest neighbor is a church-going family man whose adolescent sons say "yes, sir", "no, sir" and "please" and "thank you" with numbing regularity. They are happy kids, and he regularly works with them honing their archery and shooting skills. When he said that I could use his range any time I wanted, I brought up a couple of bricks of .22 LR ammunition for his boys as a "thank you". He was grinning from ear to ear as his boys thanked me very politely and asked for permission to break out their rifles to practice. He's doing everything right - reminds me of my dad's military-inspired discipline with firearms. His kids have the safety drill down to a T. When a family from their congregation showed up to sight in their new hunting rifles, the boys patiently explained to their teenage daughter that she could only release the safety of her rifle when it was pointed down-range at the target area with it's earth-berm backstop, and they explained that shooting at a bank that contained rocks could result in ricochet of bullet fragments. Their father covered all this and more again with the whole family, but I was impressed with the seriousness and the level of understanding that these young fellows exhibited. I could have given the same talk at their age, too. When I was their age, I once lectured my great-uncle about firearms familiarity and muzzle-safety after he did something that I realized was very unsafe. He had bought a new lever-action rifle and had no idea how to load it safely and we were about to embark on a deer hunt. My dad listened, nodded and asked me to show my uncle how to safely load his gun. I did so, and then he sent me across the road to a beech ridge about a mile in the woods and sent my city-slicker uncle in the opposite direction.

 

[drankin]

That's unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted. Guns and ammunition that are stored separately under lock and key with trigger locks are very safe. Also, children should be taken to the range when they are old enough and be taught how to handle firearms safely. When I was about 10 my dad taught me how to field strip, clean, lubricate and reassemble his M1 carbine. When I could do it practically blindfolded while handling the gun with respect and with full awareness of muzzle direction, he took me to a local sand pit and taught me how to load the clips, how to chamber a round manually, how to sight on the target, and finally, how to release the safety and fire the gun accurately. After every lesson, I verified that the gun was empty, packed the clips and ammunition boxes, and when we got home, I broke out the cleaning rod brushes, rags and oil, and cleaned the gun thoroughly before putting it away. I never handled guns without permission until I was old enough (maybe 15 or so) to go to the sandpit myself after school with my own .22 rifle and practice. Although I learned to shoot initially with a semi-automatic carbine (the M1), discipline was drilled into me, and for decades I have hunted with either a lever-action Winchester loaded with a single round or my single-shot Ruger rifle. I will not take a shot at a deer unless it is a guaranteed kill.

Some non-gun/anti-gun people like to characterize gun owners as macho, aggressive, etc. This is far from the case. My nearest neighbor is a church-going family man whose adolescent sons say "yes, sir", "no, sir" and "please" and "thank you" with numbing regularity. They are happy kids, and he regularly works with them honing their archery and shooting skills. When he said that I could use his range any time I wanted, I brought up a couple of bricks of .22 LR ammunition for his boys as a "thank you". He was grinning from ear to ear as his boys thanked me very politely and asked for permission to break out their rifles to practice. He's doing everything right - reminds me of my dad's military-inspired discipline with firearms. His kids have the safety drill down to a T. When a family from their congregation showed up to sight in their new hunting rifles, the boys patiently explained to their teenage daughter that she could only release the safety of her rifle when it was pointed down-range at the target area with it's earth-berm backstop, and they explained that shooting at a bank that contained rocks could result in ricochet of bullet fragments. Their father covered all this and more again with the whole family, but I was impressed with the seriousness and the level of understanding that these young fellows exhibited. I could have given the same talk at their age, too. When I was their age, I once lectured my great-uncle about firearms familiarity and muzzle-safety after he did something that I realized was very unsafe. He had bought a new lever-action rifle and had no idea how to load it safely and we were about to embark on a deer hunt. My dad listened, nodded and asked me to show my uncle how to safely load his gun. I did so, and then he sent me across the road to a beech ridge about a mile in the woods and sent my city-slicker uncle in the opposite direction.

Great post, turbo. I'll bet you couldn't have learned gun safety from anyone better than you did from your father.

 

[SticksandStones]

That's unnecessarily restrictive and short-sighted. Guns and ammunition that are stored separately under lock and key with trigger locks are very safe. Also, children should be taken to the range when they are old enough and be taught how to handle firearms safely. When I was about 10 my dad taught me how to field strip, clean, lubricate and reassemble his M1 carbine. When I could do it practically blindfolded while handling the gun with respect and with full awareness of muzzle direction, he took me to a local sand pit and taught me how to load the clips, how to chamber a round manually, how to sight on the target, and finally, how to release the safety and fire the gun accurately. After every lesson, I verified that the gun was empty, packed the clips and ammunition boxes, and when we got home, I broke out the cleaning rod brushes, rags and oil, and cleaned the gun thoroughly before putting it away. I never handled guns without permission until I was old enough (maybe 15 or so) to go to the sandpit myself after school with my own .22 rifle and practice. Although I learned to shoot initially with a semi-automatic carbine (the M1), discipline was drilled into me, and for decades I have hunted with either a lever-action Winchester loaded with a single round or my single-shot Ruger rifle. I will not take a shot at a deer unless it is a guaranteed kill.

Some non-gun/anti-gun people like to characterize gun owners as macho, aggressive, etc. This is far from the case. My nearest neighbor is a church-going family man whose adolescent sons say "yes, sir", "no, sir" and "please" and "thank you" with numbing regularity. They are happy kids, and he regularly works with them honing their archery and shooting skills. When he said that I could use his range any time I wanted, I brought up a couple of bricks of .22 LR ammunition for his boys as a "thank you". He was grinning from ear to ear as his boys thanked me very politely and asked for permission to break out their rifles to practice. He's doing everything right - reminds me of my dad's military-inspired discipline with firearms. His kids have the safety drill down to a T. When a family from their congregation showed up to sight in their new hunting rifles, the boys patiently explained to their teenage daughter that she could only release the safety of her rifle when it was pointed down-range at the target area with it's earth-berm backstop, and they explained that shooting at a bank that contained rocks could result in ricochet of bullet fragments. Their father covered all this and more again with the whole family, but I was impressed with the seriousness and the level of understanding that these young fellows exhibited. I could have given the same talk at their age, too. When I was their age, I once lectured my great-uncle about firearms familiarity and muzzle-safety after he did something that I realized was very unsafe. He had bought a new lever-action rifle and had no idea how to load it safely and we were about to embark on a deer hunt. My dad listened, nodded and asked me to show my uncle how to safely load his gun. I did so, and then he sent me across the road to a beech ridge about a mile in the woods and sent my city-slicker uncle in the opposite direction.

The problem is that many people don't have that level of security with their guns. They may lock their guns, but then they'll leave the keys lying around. They might even put them in a safe, but that's useless if they etch the combination into the side. Worse yet, they may leave the guns completely unlocked and loaded, just waiting for someone who is depressed and irrational to come across and use them to take a life.

Given how many teenagers commit suicide and homicide each year (there was just a school shooting at a near-by high school last week!) I do not think it is at all "OK" to leave guns around where irrational teens may get hold of them and use them in a very, very negative way. Most teens today know better than to try and cut their wists or overdose on pills. A gun on the other hand, to a depressed individual, may be seen as a perfect way to end their misery.

If everyone just practiced common sense with their weapons I would say let everyone have a gun, but too many people don't.

 

[turbo]

Great post, turbo. I'll bet you couldn't have learned gun safety from anyone better than you did from your father.

Dad quit HS early during WWII and got into Airborne. He took his training VERY seriously. Airborne troops often carried M1 carbines with folding stocks, so when he got out, he picked up a surplus M1. Like I said, he made sure that I could strip, clean, lube and reassemble that gun in short order before he would train me to load it and use it safely. When I was around 11 or so, he bought a Ruger .44mag carbine and gave me the M1 to hunt with. The first time we went to the range with "our" carbines, one of his friends dropped in while I was taking the guns and ammo in the house and they stayed out in the yard talking. I had stripped, cleaned and reassembled my M1, so I tore down his new Ruger, and was in the process of cleaning it when he came back into the house and saw his new carbine in pieces on the kitchen table. He was pretty shocked and asked why I took it apart. I told him that his gun needed to be cleaned before we put it away. Of course, he had never torn down that gun and was pretty antsy, but I had laid out the parts as I removed them and I reassembled it in reverse order as he watched. We took our guns to the range the next day and his gun performed flawlessly. (thank god!)

 

[SticksandStones]

He took his training VERY seriously. Airborne troops often carried M1 carbines with folding stocks, so when he got out, he picked up a surplus M1. Like I said, he made sure that I could strip, clean, lube and reassemble that gun in short order before he would train me to load it and use it safely.

Your dad sounds like a good man. I wish a friend of mine's father had been that careful with his guns. Heck, I wish MY dad was that careful with his guns.

 

[turbo]

Your dad sounds like a good man. I wish a friend of mine's father had been that careful with his guns. Heck, I wish MY dad was that careful with his guns.

That's the key. Responsible people like my father, myself, and my neighbor and his young sons try to pass this knowledge and respect on to others. We do not tolerate irresponsible handling of firearms in our presence and we try to gently help and educate those whose training is inadequate. My father trained me with the M1 just the way he was trained in Airborne. He used to time me and challenge me to strip, clean, lube and reassemble that gun in shorter and shorter times with NO tolerance for sloppy muzzle awareness. When I was done, he would inspect the carbine and if it was not scrupulously clean, we'd start the drill again. It wasn't boot camp for me - I loved it, and I knew it was the gateway to rifle training so I did my very best. Training and discipline make home-stored firearms a WHOLE lot safer than "don't touch" and other defeatable forms of denial. Knowing guns inside-out helps kids avoid the foolish "forbidden fruit" fascination that makes guns so "dangerous" and attractive to those who are denied access and knowledge.

Kids who see movies showing gang-bangers holding high-capacity semi-auto pistols rotated 90 degrees out of proper sight-picture orientation and blasting away are getting the most inaccurate and dangerous information that you could expect. If I were invading someone's house, I would far rather face one of these idiots than a person holding a full-sized normal-capacity .45 ACP held with two hands and held low for short-range accuracy. Entertainment media are to be blamed (quite rightfully) for this crap.

 

[turbo]

The problem is that many people don't have that level of security with their guns. They may lock their guns, but then they'll leave the keys lying around. They might even put them in a safe, but that's useless if they etch the combination into the side. Worse yet, they may leave the guns completely unlocked and loaded, just waiting for someone who is depressed and irrational to come across and use them to take a life.

Given how many teenagers commit suicide and homicide each year (there was just a school shooting at a near-by high school last week!) I do not think it is at all "OK" to leave guns around where irrational teens may get hold of them and use them in a very, very negative way. Most teens today know better than to try and cut their wists or overdose on pills. A gun on the other hand, to a depressed individual, may be seen as a perfect way to end their misery.

If everyone just practiced common sense with their weapons I would say let everyone have a gun, but too many people don't.

Do you have any statistics for people who have established adequate security provisions, yet "leave the keys lying around"? Pardon me, but that sounds like a generalization that is predicated on a belief that guns are dangerous and that gun-owners are irresponsible. If a despondent teen wants to kill himself, there are plenty of ways to accomplish that without a gun. If you don't want depressed teens to commit suicide, it would be far more productive to talk to them and help them pull out of depression than to try to regulate away every possible means that they might employ to commit suicide. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[drankin]

I'm going to say something that I don't have actual evidence on. I'll look into it more later. But, I have never heard of anyone who has is experienced with firearms and has been formerly trained on firearm safety who is also an anti-gun activist. I imagine there are a few out there but I have never heard of a single one. And I believe it is simply a matter of proper firearm education. Once someone is educated and properly trained, they quickly understand what is misunderstood about guns.

 

[SticksandStones]

Do you have any statistics for people who have established adequate security provisions, yet "leave the keys lying around"? Pardon me, but that sounds like a generalization that is predicated on a belief that guns are dangerous and that gun-owners are irresponsible. If a despondent teen wants to kill himself, there are plenty of ways to accomplish that without a gun. If you don't want depressed teens to commit suicide, it would be far more productive to talk to them and help them pull out of depression than to try to regulate away every possible means that they might employ to commit suicide. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Do I have statistics? No, just personal experience with several gun owners [my dad actually started locking his guns only recently, and he still leaves the keys lying around where I or anyone could get them with ease, and he's not at all uneducated about guns. Ditto for my neighbors.].

As for depressed teens, I can tell you from experience you don't know who's going to kill themselves until it's too late. The most fun loving, happy, smart person I knew decided one day to take his life. Nobody, not his family or his closest friends thought it would be him. Nobody. He was never depressed, ever. He was always happy. And he wasn't stupid either. He knew (a bit too late, judging by the scene) that over dosing on pills would kill his organs and put him in the hospital before it killed him. He knew that slitting his wrists would only put him in a lot of pain. He knew that a noose would take forever. He knew all that - most of it learned from the suicide-prevention talks from school. He wasn't stupid, he wanted a quick death and he got it. All because his father decided leaving several, loaded, unlocked rifles in the bedroom would be a good idea.

If those guns were taken care of properly (or just NOT THERE) he would still be with us. I knew him, and this man was as lazy as they come. He wouldn't have gone through with it if it meant it took a long time or if it was painful. A bullet isn't slow though, and he knew that.

There plenty of ways to kill yourself, but as far as I'm concerned guns are the most attractive method. You don't and shouldn't regulate everything that could be used in suicide, but it's stupid to let something as deadly and easy to operate as a gun get into teenagers hands so easily. I mean, with a knife it takes cutting a certain way to be effective. With a gun...well it takes talent to not get killed by a gunshot wound.

I honestly believe that some people see a gun as a quick way to end their life and problems. I mean, what's faster than a bullet? If guns were kept away from them, or at least harder to get a hold of, how many people would go through the trouble? If that quick solution is gone maybe they'll talk to their friends instead of hiding it and doing something stupid.

I don't want to take away guns. I like going and practicing my aim, I'm not going to lie. I'm not anti gun at all. I just want to keep them out of the hands of people who aren't rational. Frankly, there aren't too many teens who ARE. I know for a fact I'm wasn't.

 

[turbo]

Do I have statistics? No, just personal experience with several gun owners [my dad actually started locking his guns only recently, and he still leaves the keys lying around where I or anyone could get them with ease, and he's not at all uneducated about guns. Ditto for my neighbors.].

As for depressed teens, I can tell you from experience you don't know who's going to kill themselves until it's too late. The most fun loving, happy, smart person I knew decided one day to take his life. Nobody, not his family or his closest friends thought it would be him. Nobody. He was never depressed, ever. He was always happy. And he wasn't stupid either. He knew (a bit too late, judging by the scene) that over dosing on pills would kill his organs and put him in the hospital before it killed him. He knew that slitting his wrists would only put him in a lot of pain. He knew that a noose would take forever. He knew all that - most of it learned from the suicide-prevention talks from school. He wasn't stupid, he wanted a quick death and he got it. All because his father decided leaving four, loaded, unlocked rifles in the bedroom would be a good idea.

If those guns were taken care of properly (or just NOT THERE) he would still be with us. I knew him, and this man was as lazy as they come. He wouldn't have gone through with it if it meant it took a long time or if it was painful. A bullet isn't slow though, and he knew that.

There plenty of ways to kill yourself, but as far as I'm concerned guns are the most attractive method. You don't and shouldn't regulate everything that could be used in suicide, but it's stupid to let something as deadly and easy to operate as a gun get into teenagers hands so easily. I mean, with a knife it takes cutting a certain way to be effective. With a gun...well it takes talent to not get killed by a gunshot wound.

I honestly believe that some people see a gun as a quick way to end their life and problems. I mean, what's faster than a bullet? If guns were kept away from them, or at least harder to get a hold of, how many people would go through the trouble? If that quick solution is gone maybe they'll talk to their friends instead of hiding it and doing something stupid.

I don't want to take away guns. I like going and practicing my aim, I'm not going to lie. I'm not anti gun at all. I just want to keep them out of the hands of people who aren't rational. Frankly, there aren't too many teens who ARE. I know for a fact I'm wasn't.

OK, you've given us an apocryphal story about a troubled teen to bolster your claim that "guns are bad" on some level. Let's get real. Given the lack of an accessible gun, could the guy have killed himself? How about carbon monoxide poisoning in a confined space? Shall we ban all people with garages from owning cars, lawn-mowers, ATVs, etc? Shall we require large fence-like structures on all high bridges? At some point, we have to insist on integrity and personal responsibility, and we cannot possibly legislate ourselves out of that situation. No matter how stupid, or desperate, or clueless someone is, they all have the means of their own destruction at hand. I would rather help these people than restrict the rights of all other citizens to own guns and ammunition and to own them without having to register them with a federal government that may or may not decide to swoop in and confiscate everything.

 

[SticksandStones]

No matter how stupid, or desperate, or clueless someone is, they have the means of their own destruction at hand.

I agree.

How about carbon monoxide poisoning in a confined space?

Again, think about the speed of that. It is my understanding that that is quite slow, and easy to stop too. If someone has a plan, they're going to kill themselves. It's as simple as that and I think you agree with me on that. Those who don't have a plan, those who decide one day it's just too much, they're the ones who can be saved.

to bolster your claim that "guns are bad" on some level.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said guns are bad. I enjoy shooting my gun, and I certainly am not advocating removing a citizen's means to protect themselves.

I would rather help these people than restrict the rights of all others to own guns and ammunition and own them without having to register them with a federal government that may or may not decide to swoop in and confiscate everything.

So would I, but how do you know who needs the help in the first place? Wouldn't at least making it mandatory to own a gun safe before purchasing a gun be a better system than just hoping that everyone practices common sense? Heck, I'll settle for making them buy a lock with the gun. Anything to encourage people to make the right decision.

At some point, we have to insist on integrity and personal responsibility, and we cannot possibly legislate ourselves out of that situation.

In an ideal world that would be the default policy. I don't think we live in an ideal world though. Why should we endanger someone's lives because people *should* take responsibility? It's been shown repeatedly that sometimes people *don't* take responsibility, and then people get hurt. We make people have auto insurance, because some people won't take personal responsibility and we shouldn't risk everyone else because of that. I see no reason not to make sure gun owners at least follow something that resembles safety with their guns. If gun owners simply had to buy a lock with their gun I would be happy. At least then they may use it.

 

[drankin]

If gun owners simply had to buy a lock with their gun I would be happy. At least then they may use it.

Actually, I believe this is the law. At least in Washington State if not a Federal requirement. When I buy a firearm here, a lock is required with the purchase, thrown into the package by the dealer. But, not many use them. Guns for personal defense aren't very effective when they are locked up. But for storage, of course, a lock is a good practice. Gun safes are tax free here as well.

 

[BobG]

I would rather help these people than restrict the rights of all other citizens to own guns and ammunition and to own them without having to register them with a federal government that may or may not decide to swoop in and confiscate everything.

Actually, I'm with you until you get to this paragraph. This is almost like saying we shouldn't have to register our cars or get a driver's license because of the threat of the federal government swooping in and confiscating our cars.

A couple of your other posts hint at the problems of current firearms laws. Training someone to use firearms responsibly is done on an informal basis and fairly randomly among the population. You have a lot of users that know what they're doing, plus you have a lot of users whose only qualification for handling a gun is that they have the cash.

I don't think having to register a particular gun (or guns) should be a requirement, but a person should have to have a license or some other documentation to show they've actually completed some type of gun safety course before they're allowed to buy a gun. An actual license would probably be preferred, since it would also make it easier to check if the license had been revoked because of felonies, etc.

 

[SticksandStones]

Actually, I believe this is the law. At least in Washington State if not a Federal requirement. When I buy a firearm here, a lock is required with the purchase, thrown into the package by the dealer. But, not many use them. Guns for personal defense aren't very effective when they are locked up. But for storage, of course, a lock is a good practice. Gun safes are tax free here as well.

If that's true than you consider me satisfied.

However, and take this with a grain of salt, the police officers whom I have spoken to regarding firearms as protection have said they're a pretty poor form of it as many people end up shooting people on accident, or get shot by robbers who would have otherwise been peaceful.

Personally, I trust my dogs with my protection. :)

 

[turbo]

Actually, I'm with you until you get to this paragraph. This is almost like saying we shouldn't have to register our cars or get a driver's license because of the threat of the federal government swooping in and confiscating our cars.

This is a real concern, though. The first step toward confiscation is identifying who owns what guns and where those guns are stored. Once that step is taken, it takes only some incremental legislation by anti-gun do-gooders to criminalize some aspects of gun ownership and trigger confiscation. There are already stupid laws on the books regarding whether or not a rifle can have a folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, bipod, high-capacity clip, etc. These laws were aimed at "assault rifles" which are typically light-weight small-caliber (.223 for instance) guns. Except for cosmetic differences, these semi-automatic rifles are functionally identical to other clip-fed semi-automatic rifles. I'd rather be facing somebody holding an M15 (.223) than somebody using a scoped hunting rifle like a Remington Model 742 (often .30-06 cal, and very accurate). Laws like this were written by well-meaning but ignorant people with no practical experience with guns. Really, is a pre-ban M15 more dangerous than a 742 because it has a baronet lug on the barrel? That's stupid.

If you want to require that people demonstrate proficiency before being allowed to buy or own guns ( a noble-sounding goal) you should consider that there will be repercussions for NOT getting that certification, creating a whole new class of criminals, likely prompting the seizure of their firearms and entailing civil or criminal charges and fines. Those gun-related charges would probably have the Catch-22 effect of not allowing the person to ever own a firearm even if he or she subsequently obtained the certification. Not every perceived problem can be "fixed" with another law.

 

[denverdoc]

http://www.klis.com/chandler/pamphlet/dep/Suicide.htm Scroll down to risk factors.
http://www.doctorsagainsthandguninjury.org/pdf/firearm_suicide.pdf

You have to understand one thing about suicide--in most cases its an impulsive act--by that I mean, not a decision made in a few moments, but over the course of several hours to a day. Even once started more people will back out once they start or are discovered and prevented. Certainly if one is determined they will succeed--I suspect i know this better than anyone else on this forum. I have had one patient die of a shotgun blast, and another who i got to know after the attempt, survive a shotgun blast to the head. That was not a pretty sight. Surprisingly, if one ever had a good reason to die, he changed his mind, and while looking like something out of a Halloween spook show, has managed to reclaim a life of sorts. I have had personal knowledge or was caring for 4 hanging victims, and knew a jumper who survived a 7 story descent to pavement. I have known several CO poisoning survivors, and have taken care of more pill overdoses than I can count. Slashers very rarely get it right. Still having a rapidly available and sure-fire means at ones disposal is a major risk factor, esp for impulsive adolescents. Unfortunately many suicides come in the form of homicide/suicides. More often than not guns are the primary means--hard to corral a bunch of citizens and hang them from the nearest tree. Occasionally motor vehicles are used, but the vast majority are with guns, a la Columbine, an event I was closely associted with.