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

[Gokul43201]

Cyrus, the point of this thread is not to debate the Second Amendment, but rather to debate whether handgun ownership really makes us safer.

I think we're going somewhat off-topic by discussing possible scenarios for 21st century militias overthrowing the US Government.

 

[Cyrus]

cyrus, the point of this thread is not to debate the Second Amendment, but rather to debate whether handgun ownership really makes us safer.

Right, and I am saying that's a fundamentally WRONG question. Having a handgun isn't to make you safe or not. Its completely irrelevant.

No where does it say in the 2nd amendment, 'have guns that keep your family safe'.

 

[Gokul43201]

Right, and I am saying that's a fundamentally WRONG question. Having a handgun isn't to make you safe or not. Its completely irrelevant.

But it is exactly what gun rights advocates argue for. And whether or not it was intended to make you safer, if it does make you safer, that's an argument in favor of it.

 

[Jordan Joab]

You seem to be mixing two things up, well sort of. Were a foreign country to invade us today, it would be the job of the miltary to fight them - nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If the military did a bad job and failed, then you could get your gun in your basement and take action.

I disagree with you, strongly, that 'the government has troops and loyalists that will fight you'. This makes no sense, and I don't think its true either. Its not anarchy, its called a civil war. People in the military would likely leave and take sides with whoever they want to fight for. Obviously, this is a hypothetical. It could be a split in two, three, ten. Who knows. But the point is, to say that the us military will just stay together is too much of a stretch.

Except the Court's decision has nothing to do with fighting evil governments. The Court decided that Americans have the right to own firearms, including handguns, for personal protection.

Once again, I am against private handguns. If you want to own grenade launchers, automatic rifles, shotguns, an aircraft carrier, etc. to protect your home and fight evil governments by all means knock yourself out.

Ok, so if I am trying to fight a government, shouldnt I have a gun that is concealed?

Yes, you can have a concealed gun to defeat that evil goverment. Except, and I repeat myself again, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have the right to own firearms, including handguns for personal/private use.

The keyword here is handgun. I'm not going to expect that every law-abiding citizen will keep their private handgun at home. Many people will carry it in their cars, in the subway, on buses, at the airport, theaters, etc.

This is not about fighting governments. This is about allowing American citizens to carry personal handguns for personal use. This is wrong and dangerous.



Jordan.

 

[Cyrus]

But it is exactly what gun rights advocates argue for. And whether or not it was intended to make you safer, if it does make you safer, that's an argument in favor of it.

I think the problem is people who like guns want to make the 2nd amendment into some psudo Im-a-police-man right. I don't think anyone should have any form of guns on the streets. If they think otherwise, then they can please show me where the constitution says you can walk around acting as Mr. Police man.

 

[Cyrus]

Except the Court's decision has nothing to do with fighting evil governments. The Court decided that Americans have the right to own firearms, including handguns, for personal protection.

Thats BS, IMO. The point of guns isn't for personal protection, and I don't agree with that part of the court.

Once again, I am against private handguns. If you want to own grenade launchers, automatic rifles, shotguns, an aircraft carrier, etc. to protect your home and fight evil governments by all means knock yourself out.

No, I think handguns go right in there with anything and everything. The key is, you can't WALK AROUND with it.

Yes, you can have a concealed gun to defeat that evil goverment. Except, and I repeat myself again, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have the right to own firearms, including handguns for personal/private use.

The keyword here is handgun. I'm not going to expect that every law-abiding citizen will keep their private handgun at home. Many people will carry it in their cars, in the subway, on buses, at the airport, theaters, etc.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I think there should be a SEVERE penalty for having it outside your house if your not going to a shooting range.

There needs to be a change of view in this country about guns. People should have whatever kind of gun they want. But they also need to have it branded in the back of their mind that if they ever decide to take it out of the house for reasons not specified in the constitution, they could face serious consequence: like fines in the thousands of dollars or years in jail, lose the right to have their gun, or all three.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Thats BS, IMO. The point of guns isn't for personal protection, and I don't agree with that part of the court.



No, I think handguns go right in there with anything and everything. The key is, you can't WALK AROUND with it.



I think we agree more than we disagree. I think there should be a SEVERE penalty for having it outside your house if your not going to a shooting range.

And that's exactly the problem. The Supreme Court concluded that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. This means individuals can walk to a gun shop, pass the necessary background checks, and take their brand new handgun home. Alright, can the Supreme Court guarantee me that these handguns will stay home? And where exactly does this right end?

Can individuals carry their handguns to work? In their cars? In the subway? Just at home?

Do handguns truly make us safer? Why not a "taser" or pepper spray? Am I to trust the "good" judgment and common sense of people in stressful situations?

This is where it gets dangerous but it seems few people are actually concerned about this issue. Perhaps I'm wrong.



Jordan.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think the problem is people who like guns want to make the 2nd amendment into some psudo Im-a-police-man right. I don't think anyone should have any form of guns on the streets. If they think otherwise, then they can please show me where the constitution says you can walk around acting as Mr. Police man.

It's not there in the Second Amendment, but early case law show some places where the individual right (as opposed to the collective militia) was asserted as being a natural interpretation of the SA. The most commonly cited precedent is Bliss v. Commonwealth.

Cite as Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Littell 90 (Ky. 1822)

BLISS v. COMMONWEALTH.

1. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, must be preserved entire.
2. Not merely all legislative acts, which purport to take it away; but all which diminish or impair it, as it existed when the constitution was formed, are void.
3. The act to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms, is unconstitutional and void.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/bliss_v_commonwealth.txt

 

[B. Elliott]

I was raised with both sides of my family owning handguns and rifles.We've been about as pro-firearm the same amount that we've been pro-knives, or pro-any sharp thing. Pistols are a form of self defense. We have three pistols scattered throughout the house in case something happens... weather it involves an intruder, assault on a family member on our property, wild animals, ect. My mother knows how to shoot a firearm well for those reasons. As does my sister, grandmother, grandfathers. My grandfather actually taught me gun safety and how to fire one at a young age, approximately nine years old. My grandfather hunts deer and turkey for food. He has done this since he was a young child growing up in the mountains on north Georgia when it was one of the only sources of food. A necessity to survive..

People can try to dissect the Second Amendment of The Constitution as much as they like. It cannot be worded any clearer than it already is. I will continue to carry a firearm to protect myself, family member and friends, against the possibility of an assailant taking away their life. I never show my pistol unless I intend to use it. If I draw it, someone is getting killed.

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:

* 60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one weapon in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.

http://hematite.com/dragon/reasons2own.html

It's important to remember that gun ownership is the one human right which can ensure that other human rights will not be violated.

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

 

[Cyrus]

And that's exactly the problem. The Supreme Court concluded that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. This means individuals can walk to a gun shop, pass the necessary background checks, and take their brand new handgun home. Alright, can the Supreme Court guarantee me that these handguns will stay home? And where exactly does this right end?

Can individuals carry their handguns to work? In their cars? In the subway? Just at home?

Do handguns truly make us safer? Why not a "taser" or pepper spray? Am I to trust the "good" judgment and common sense of people in stressful situations?

This is where it gets dangerous but it seems few people are actually concerned about this issue. Perhaps I'm wrong.



Jordan.

No, no. They were absolutely RIGHT to give people in DC the right to have guns. As a native washingtonian, let me tell you this. If you think people in DC don't have handguns, illegally, then your NUTS. What people do, illegally, with their guns means nothing to me, because they are going to do it anyways. They are breaking the law, plain and SIMPLE. The answer is a combination of what we are both saying here. YES, you can buy a handgun. NO, you can't walk around town with it. In fact, you can't go ANYWHERE with it unless its to a shooting range and back. Thats the way it SHOULD be, in my opinion, and the laws in owning a gun should reflect that.

 

[Cyrus]

It's not there in the Second Amendment, but early case law show some places where the individual right (as opposed to the collective militia) was asserted as being a natural interpretation of the SA. The most commonly cited precedent is Bliss v. Commonwealth.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/bliss_v_commonwealth.txt

Well, I think the 'themselves' should mean 'within their own home'.

 

[B. Elliott]

Well, I think the 'themselves' should mean 'within their own home'.

That's where my opinion differs. I have a carry license and believe that more people (pending a background check and completing a gun safety course) should carry. Though I do fully agree with the limitations placed upon the carry permit (which varies per state) such as not being allowed to carry in a place which sells alcohol or while under the influence, on school grounds, in federal buildings, public parks, civic centers, ect.

http://www.townofsmyrna.org/police/Handgunpermits.htm

 

[Gokul43201]

People can try to dissect the Second Amendment of The Constitution as much as they like. It cannot be worded any clearer than it already is.

Well, here's how it is worded: A 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.

The problem with it is that it comes with a prefatory clause - and it's the only amendment in the Bill of Rights with such a clause.

In addition to the problems with interpreting the role of the prefatory clause, there are concerns about its validity in the present context.

Imagine we had a Bill saying: The price of oil being no more than a few cents per gallon, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well, what happens now?

 

[B. Elliott]

Well, here's how it is worded: A 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.

The problem with it is that it comes with a prefatory clause - and it's the only amendment in the Bill of Rights with such a clause.

In addition to the problems with interpreting the role of the prefatory clause, there are concerns about its validity in the present context.

Imagine we had a Bill saying: The price of oil being no more than a few cents per gallon, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well, what happens now?

Well, what if I claim to be my own personal milita?

 

[Cyrus]

That's where my opinion differs. I have a carry license and believe that more people (pending a background check and completing a gun safety course) should carry. Though I do fully agree with the limitations placed upon the carry permit (which varies per state) such as not being allowed to carry in a place which sells alcohol or while under the influence, on school grounds, in federal buildings, public parks, civic centers, ect.

http://www.townofsmyrna.org/police/Handgunpermits.htm

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was made to keep a well armed populace in case of government tyranny. That should be the *only* reason we have guns. In fact, I don't think people should even be allowed to use these guns within their own homes as self protection, because again the point of having the guns is not for self protection. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government. ANY use of a gun that's NOT for overthrowing the government should be illegal.

 

[B. Elliott]

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was made to keep a well armed populace in case of government tyranny. That should be the *only* reason we have guns. In fact, I don't think people should even be allowed to use these guns within their own homes as self protection, because again the point of having the guns is not for self protection. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government. ANY use of a gun that's NOT for overthrowing the government should be illegal.

It's important to remember that gun ownership is the one human right which can ensure that other human rights will not be violated.

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

 

[Cyrus]

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

I don't follow how that quote differs from what I'm saying though.

 

[Jordan Joab]

No, no. They were absolutely RIGHT to give people in DC the right to have guns. As a native washingtonian, let me tell you this. If you think people in DC don't have handguns, illegally, then your NUTS. What people do, illegally, with their guns means nothing to me, because they are going to do it anyways. They are breaking the law, plain and SIMPLE. The answer is a combination of what we are both saying here. YES, you can buy a handgun. NO, you can't walk around town with it. In fact, you can't go ANYWHERE with it unless its to a shooting range and back. Thats the way it SHOULD be, in my opinion, and the laws in owning a gun should reflect that.

That's the problem. Not only do I have to worry about criminals with illegal guns but about private citizens with legal handguns. We can give private citizens the right to carry a "taser" or pepper spray for personal protection. Inner cities + handguns simply do not mix.

An individual that buys a handgun is not simply thinking about protecting his/her home. That person wants to protect him/herself everywhere, anywhere he/she goes. What happens when this law-abiding citizen is in a stressful situation? Can you trust this person to make the right decision? I believe Ivan Seeking mentioned he came close using his firearm in a few occasions. What if more people find themselves in those situations and make the wrong decision?

I believe many of these legal handguns carried by law-abiding citizens will make it out onto the streets and end up being used incorrectly. I guarantee you prejudice, fear, anger, etc. will make many people reach the wrong decision when dealing with regular day-to-day situations in big cities (crowded buses/subway, road rage, car crashes, etc).



Jordan.

 

[Cyrus]

That's the problem. Not only do I have to worry about criminals with illegal guns but about private citizens with legal handguns. We can give private citizens the right to carry a "taser" or pepper spray for personal protection. Inner cities + handguns simply do not mix.

I will dissect what you said. For the bold part, yes. But this is very important. They can buy all the hand guns they want (In the cyrus system). But they cant use them for personal protection. Meaning, it stays in the house for that day the government comes to take away your liberty.

If someone breaks into your house, you got to use that baseball bat or taser. Sorry, can't use the handgun.

An individual that buys a handgun is not simply thinking about protecting his/her home. That person wants to protect him/herself everywhere, anywhere he/she goes. What happens when this law-abiding citizen is in a stressful situation? Can you trust this person to make the right decision? I believe Ivan Seeking mentioned he came close using his firearm in a few occasions. What if more people find themselves in those situations and make the wrong decision?

They go to jail. Lots of people also get stressed and drink and drive and kill people. Were not going to outlaw alcohol or cars out of fear. Let's not do the same to guns. This is not a rational argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, what if I claim to be my own personal milita?

Even if one accepts that, it's still only a small part of the prefatory clause that you've covered.

 

[B. Elliott]

Even if one accepts that, it's still only a small part of the prefatory clause that you've covered.

It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

 

[Jordan Joab]

I will dissect what you said. For the bold part, yes. But this is very important. They can buy all the hand guns they want (In the cyrus system). But they cant use them for personal protection. Meaning, it stays in the house for that day the government comes to take away your liberty

You see? I agree 100% with the Cyrus system. The problem is the Cyrus system is not in effect. The Supreme Court system is. This is exactly where our new 2nd Amendment just kicked in. Now, individuals can use that handgun for personal protection.

If someone breaks into your house, you got to use that baseeball bat or taser. Sorry, can't use the handgun.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. I say, if this where to happen, use that shotgun you got under your bed.

They go to jail. Lots of people also get stressed and drink and drive and kill people. Were not going to outlaw alcohol or car out of fear. Let's not do the same to guns. This is not a rational argument.

Alcohol and cars were not made to kill people. Handguns were. This topic is going circles.

I simply want to know, how does granting law-abiding citizens the right to purchase and own handguns make us safer and more secure?



Jordan.

 

[WarPhalange]

Well, what if I claim to be my own personal milita?

Then you get shot by a SWAT team like in Waco.

 

[B. Elliott]

Then you get shot by a SWAT team like in Waco.

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita. My lawyer would have field day with that.

 

[Cyrus]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

But you have to admit that you quote the constution which gives you the right to have a gun to protect your liberty, yet you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. An ENTIRELY different reason. A robber is not trying to take your liberty, he wants your money.

 

[Gokul43201]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

What's with the non-sequitur?

 

[B. Elliott]

But you have to admit that you quote the constution which gives you the right to have a gun to protect your liberty, yet you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. An ENTIRELY different reason. A robber is not trying to take your liberty, he wants your money.

The key is, you never know what the robbers intent is when approaches you with a gun. If approaches with a weapon which can be used to kill, I will not assume anything except that he intends to use it.

“The evidence of the natural rights of expatriation, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical”

- Thomas Jefferson.

 

[B. Elliott]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm


If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

 

[Cyrus]

The key is, you never know what the robbers intent is when approaches you with a gun. If approaches with a weapon which can be used to kill, I will not assume anything except that he intends to use it.



- Thomas Jefferson.

Sure, I know 100% that a robber is not trying to take away your liberty. He cant, he doesn't have that power. Only the government can do that to you.

Now he could kill you, in which case having liberty is trivial, but that's besides the point.

You have the right to protect yourself, but it can't be with a gun whose purpose of you having it was to protect your liberty from the government.

 

[B. Elliott]

What's with the non-sequitur?

What do you mean? I'm not familiar with that term.

 

[B. Elliott]

Sure, I know 100% that a robber is not trying to take away your liberty. He cant, he doesn't have that power. Only the government can do that to you.

Now he could kill you, in which case having liberty is trivial, but that's besides the point.

You have the right to protect yourself, but it can't be with a gun whos purpose of you having was to protect your liberty from the government.

If he is in the position to kill me, he is in the position to take away my life which the Constitution states I have a right to. The US government allows me to own a firearm to protect my life.

 

[Gokul43201]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

 

[B. Elliott]

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

If a cop stops me, chances are I have broken the law.

 

[Gokul43201]

What do you mean? I'm not familiar with that term.

Actually it is worse than a non-sequitur (which is a statement unconnected to the previous statement). If anything, the annotation you quoted weakens, rather than strengthens your argument.

 

[Gokul43201]

If a cop stops me, chances are I have broken the law.

Correct. So, the legislature has the right to curb your pursuit of happiness.