http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/moose/story/769431.htmlMoose death at Valley school prompts criticism, questions
TAUNTED: Biologists are unsure if students' actions were the cause.
WASILLA -- Though no one knows what killed a yearling moose found dead outside Colony Middle School on Monday, two students stand accused of contributing to its death by taunting the animal after finding it on school grounds during a physical education class, according to Alaska State Troopers and school officials.
After allegedly being harassed by the students, the moose became frightened, rammed itself into a fence outside the school near Palmer, and then died, according to troopers.
Loren Booda said:...but that possession of guns should be regulated, not misinterpreted as a right.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiiA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
LowlyPion said:Evidently things start in the earlier education in Alaska. Like middle school. Maybe they do need to carry?
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/moose/story/769431.html
Loren Booda said:Both guns and cars kill tens of thousands each year in the US, but nobody claims any other mechanical, deadly contrivance than a gun to be Constitutionally protected. I think target shooting is great, and have eaten hunted game, but that possession of guns should be regulated, not misinterpreted as a right.
rootX said:Sorry I might have missed but last time you were assuming this. Can you prove that they are looking for power and control? I think it would be far easier to tackle the problem if we know what is causing it.
http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/Spring07ContextsFeature.pdfSocial ties are enhanced by community support for teen
accomplishments in sports, a subculture from which shooters
are permanently estranged. That marginality reinforces
the sense of social failure that surrounds the shooter at
school. He has no refuge, particularly since the very stability
of the community ensures that his exclusion is permanent.
Few young people leave to go to college or seek adventure.
The very rootedness of the community converts the ordinary
experience of the social misfit (common to lots of American
“geeks”) into a life sentence.
School shooters do not act spontaneously. They plan
their actions months in advance and announce their intentions
repeatedly to peers, though often in ways so veiled
that what they were trying to communicate becomes clear
only after the event. They virtually never send those signals
to adults; the message is confined to peers. Shooters are
rarely “troublemakers,” and generally escape the kind of
surveillance applied to disruptive kids. Indeed, it was not
unusual for adults to regard the perpetrators as exceptionally
well behaved.
Peers see them differently. Their classmates may know
school shooters as belligerent bullies, wimpy victims of bullying,
or both. They are masters at “code switching” and
display different personality characteristics to different audiences,
making it harder for adults to detect them. Their
classmates are rarely surprised to discover that they are the
perpetrators, though, because they have heard the veiled
threats and witnessed various forms of mildly pathological
behavior.
What are school shooters trying to prove? First, they are
searching for a way to retire their public image as dweebs
and misfits, exchanging it for something more alluring: the
dangerous, violent man. They are not loners, but losers who
experience constant rejection as they attempt to find their
way into peer groups. Nothing works. But when they start
talking about shooting people, they get the attention they
were looking for. In a classic case of escalating commitment,
shooters find themselves boxed into
doing the deed because to retreat
from it is to fail one more time, very
publicly.
drankin said:As far as gov't regulation in public, I could agree if the gov't provided the training without restriction to any citizen that can lawfully own a firearm. I think the government should seriously get involved in training everyone. This would be a good oportunity for our gov't to regulate through education. People are going to be armed anyway, wouldn't it be better for public safety if our government participated and had a say in the training? I think it would be a win/win for everyone.
TheStatutoryApe said:I believe that both the state and fed do offer training. One merely has to sign up and do ones service to the state and/or country in return. ;-)
NeoDevin said:Perhaps the training requirements should be increased to the level of preparedness that law enforcement officers are expected to maintain? I'm not sure if they should be government funded or not, there are arguments for both sides. drankin you surprise me when you say the gov't should pay for firearms training for everyone, where would the money for such programs come from? You have the right to firearms in the US, but the government doesn't pay for them, why should they pay for the training?
Required attendance at least once/month (or once per week, or whatever is required to maintain the skills) in order maintain your carry permit (I see no real reason that universities should be at all special in this respect)? If this is what it takes to ensure public safety from people "defending" themselves, then I'd say it's a good thing. It would have the added benefit that people trying to defend themselves might actually have a chance of doing so (unlike the poor children who were turned into swiss cheese in Moonbear's video). Maybe even have a sufficiently challenging test at each of the training sessions, which must be passed in order to maintain your permit.
So let's see:
Little/No training (the current system): Higher chance of innocent bystanders injured, lower chance of person successfully defending themselves.
Lots of training, with regular sessions to keep the reflexes up: Lower chance of innocents injured, higher chance of successfully defending themselves.
The only downside is the cost.
drankin said:Yep, you see where I'm going with the idea.
drankin said:That is not adequate training for civilian life. I'm talking about proactive comprehensive training programs. Not simple weekend classes. They could have different levels of concealment permits and allow people to carry in what is currently "gun free zones" provided they have the required level of certification. It would make those who are gun sensitive feel more at ease knowing that private citizens who are carrying around them are adequately trained and certified even to a level comparable to law enforcement. I've never heard of this level of government involvement but it would address the concerns of gun owners in that their rights are being respected and the concerns of the general public that those who do carry are competent.
TheStatutoryApe said:If the government is going to give comprehensive training in firearms to whom ever wants it then I think that service in the state or US military is a near perfect requirement. The citizen is giving back for what they are receiving and the institutions will hopefully make sure that the individual is stable responsible and disciplined.
cristo said:It's not an opinion on the ability of a person to defend himself. As I said above, there is experimental evidence that an average person, with or without shooting range experience, is unable to defend himself. I'm also taking the words of a proven expert, namely the marksman in the video, who said that he would require refresher training in a hostage type environment every month, otherwise he would become less able to do his job in a safe way.
Are you telling me that I cannot take the results of an experiment, and the advice of a trained expert? If so, then I'm afraid this is equivalent to a kid saying "I know better.."
If someone is a part time student and an active member of a swat team, then sure, let him carry a gun. But this is an anomaly, and thus not worth considering.
I can't imagine anyone fighting against a government with a gun... and winning!
junglebeast said:You have clearly misinterpreted this little news media game to be an "experiment", and somehow you think it also has unambiguous results? Please do share with us what new facts about life this video has unquestioningly proven.
It seems that your argument can be surmised as, "I saw this one demonstration with a couple people who pretended to be in a shootout, and the one person got shot, therefore nobody else in the world is capable of defending themselves and should not have the right to even try, regardless of who that person may be and how much experience they might have...and if you disagree with me, then you don't believe in science."
junglebeast said:It's not really an anomoly because the majority of people, who aren't prepared to use a gun, don't own a gun.
The people who would likely take advantage of this kind of law are people who already have an enthusiasm in guns and defense --
NeoDevin said:Perhaps the training requirements should be increased to the level of preparedness that law enforcement officers are expected to maintain?
What is the likelihood that any person is going to find themselves in a situation as simulated in the video (forgoing any of my previous arguements against the realism of it)?NeoDevin said:The problem is that military training is not enough. It must be ongoing training with frequent refreshers in order to be of use. Mandatory military service would be about the equivalent of a training program required to obtain a carry permit, but no follow up training. Unless you're suggesting that everyone be a permanent member of the reserves or something?
Edit: Mind I am not a gun owner and am not even much of a gun supporter. I have conflicting feelings on the topic. I still don't even think that guns on campus is likely a very good idea. I would just like to read better arguements.The recent accidental discharge of a handgun at the Bushnell theater has made some Connecticut residents angry about the lawful presence of handguns in theaters. Typically these residents don’t support the ownership or carry of firearms anywhere, not just in theaters.
But the incident has also angered many civilians who hold permits to carry handguns - because the incident revealed a repugnant double standard.
If the handgun that discharged in the theater had belonged to a private citizen, he would have been charged with reckless endangerment, breach of peace, and unlawful discharge of a firearm. He could face a total maximum sentence of 21 months in jail and $3,250 in fines. And his handgun permit would have been revoked by the State Police.
I know because I’ve represented a number of private citizens who have been arrested in the same type of situation. In some cases the concealed handgun didn’t even fire; it was merely exposed inadvertently.
No charges have been filed in this case, however. The gun owner was a police officer.
And perhaps that could be changed?drankin said:I grew up with the military. Being in the military alone does not mean you are proficient with a firearm. It means you know how to load an M16 and hit spray bullets at a target at least (boot camp). Not exactly firearms training for civilian life. Pistols are not standard issue for GI's even in combat zones. And a good portion of the military is to support combat soldiers and are not issued combat weapons. It's apples and oranges IMO.
cristo said:So you are saying that the majority of people who own a weapon are trained to an equivalent level to an active member of a swat team? Please, now you're just trolling.
TheStatutoryApe said:What is the likelihood that any person is going to find themselves in a situation as simulated in the video
I believe that training persons for both service and application of that training to life after the military is eminently reasonable.drankin said:It's not common because a handgun is not standard military issue for soldiers. And why would that be changed? For civilian life after the military? That's not the purpose of military service.
Yes, it certainly pisses off those of us who carry concealed when idiots accidently discharge a firearm in public (a pistol should never be removed from a properly designed holster while in public). I've read of a few accounts of it happening. I attribute it to a lack of training which brings me back to my point the gov't, whether it be local, state, or federal should get involved more proactively in training.
I never argued that training should not be required. I only argued the level of training which you seem to believe necessary.NeoDevin said:Either they need guns to protect themselves (in all situations, not just the ones shown in the videos), in which case they should have sufficient training to ensure public safety, or they don't need guns to protect themselves. If they have the gun, they should be trained. Guns without training is little better than Russian Roulette.
TheStatutoryApe said:I believe that training persons for both service and application of that training to life after the military is eminently reasonable.
On the other hand government funding going to any yahoo that feels like learning to use a gun does not seem so reasonable, at least not to me. What all would the government be paying for? Do they pay for the guns? ammo? professional instructors? accessible shoooting ranges? How much would it all cost and what exactly is the value of the return benefit to society? I believe that there are law enforcement training schools that are open to any applicants and receive government funding. Of course they have to pay just like anyone going to any school that receives government funding and increases the number of educated and skilled citizens. You have to pay to get CPR and first aid training. You have to pay for training to become a police officer, sheriff, nurse, EMT, doctor, educator, and any number of other skill sets far more valuable to society in general. Why should training with guns be free?
I never argued that training should not be required. I only argued the level of training which you seem to believe necessary.
drankin said:One idea might be to provide additional instruction at law enforcement schools for private citizens. And I never suggested that it would be free.
rootX said:How about http://www.taser.com/pages/default.aspx" ? They are about 300$ right now (affordable) and I am expecting them to get better and cheaper. I don't know the gun costs.
