Gun control debate

[StrangeSox]

So they just mentioned well regulated militia being necessary, but it doesn't have any bearing on why they thought you should be able to carry a loaded weapon while grocery shopping or attending class.

 

Like I said before, y'all aint taking my guns, but the constitutional argument and home safety when kids are involkved doesn't hold weight with me.

 

Look at the verbiage. It doesn't state that you must be part of a militia. It gives a reason for giving people the right to own guns, not a condition.

 

The rights still belong to individuals, not groups or militias.

[EvilMonkey]

Also, people I don't think a conceal and carry law would have helped at all here. The victims were students (in an early morning class) and professors. Who the heck would think to bring a gun to class? Who would think that was necessary and a worthwhile thing to do? Never in my very long college career have I ever thought it would be necessary. It wouldn't be worth the time or effort to pack it and bring it to class.

In 2006 the state of VA defeated a measure to allow concealed carry on campuses. The bill was prompted by the suspension of a student who was suspended for carrying, even though he had a legal concealed carry permit. So obviously SOMEONE thought to do it, at least once. if that student had been there on that day, maybe things would be different. Read post #11 in this thread.

 

Look at the verbiage. It doesn't state that you must be part of a militia. It gives a reason for giving people the right to own guns, not a condition.

 

The rights still belong to individuals, not groups or militias.

It's convenient to overlook that part when making a point that goes against it.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[Soxy]

In 2006 the state of VA defeated a measure to allow concealed carry on campuses. The bill was prompted by the suspension of a student who was suspended for carrying, even though he had a legal concealed carry permit. So obviously SOMEONE thought to do it, at least once. if that student had been there on that day, maybe things would be different.

IF some student had thought about it, yeah, maybe it would have been better, maybe it would have been worse. But, to be honest I doubt any student in a class that early would have thought about grabbing anything other than a pen and a notebook before dashing off to class.

 

And as SSI71 pointed out (and didn't he used to be in law enforcement), the odds that someone in that panicked of a state could make that good of a shot, well. . .

[Texsox]

Look at the verbiage. It doesn't state that you must be part of a militia. It gives a reason for giving people the right to own guns, not a condition.

 

The rights still belong to individuals, not groups or militias.

 

And now you believe they thought that you should be able to go into McDonalds with a concealed weapon? They envisioned a day with Atomic weapons, mega shopping malls, and thought, hey we better put something in here to allow everyone to have a weapon?

 

You can't convince me that they could foresee today's environment. They could foresee the need for an Army against foreign invaders and would want a militia against them. They could foresee needing guns for food and probably from the native savages, and I'll even give you they thought you would need one to take up arms against a tyrannical US government.

 

If their reasoning was to protect against government tyranny, what would they have written today? Citizens should be allowed weapons equal to whatever the military has?

 

The reason I should be allowed to own a firearm is I am not a criminal and use it responsibly. I do not believe more guns in the hands of average citizens and readily available will make us less violent. In fact, I believe just the opposite. Criminals don't give a rip about penalties and gun violence. Gang bangers all ready live in a world where a rival gang could drive by and take them out.

[southsider2k5]

What is interesting about this debate is that our constitutional rights aren't always the path of least resistance for government entities. Look at the attempts to limit free speech in the name of saving us from terror for example. It would be much easier for law enforcement to fight crime and terror if they could read everyone's emails, and listen to everyone's phone calls without worry, but they can't. The freedom of speech is protected, dispite the burden is places on law enforcement. For me the right to bear arms isn't any different. It might create bad situations, but this is a constitutionally protected right.

[StrangeSox]

IF some student had thought about it, yeah, maybe it would have been better, maybe it would have been worse. But, to be honest I doubt any student in a class that early would have thought about grabbing anything other than a pen and a notebook before dashing off to class.

 

And as SSI71 pointed out (and didn't he used to be in law enforcement), the odds that someone in that panicked of a state could make that good of a shot, well. . .

 

It increases the odds of taking out the shooter earlier above zero, as it was yesterday.

 

The reason I should be allowed to own a firearm is I am not a criminal and use it responsibly. I do not believe more guns in the hands of average citizens and readily available will make us less violent. In fact, I believe just the opposite. Criminals don't give a rip about penalties and gun violence. Gang bangers all ready live in a world where a rival gang could drive by and take them out.

 

Then you need to take a look at the statistics. Check out that book I posted earlier.

 

violence is a societal problem and gun violence is but a symptom.

Edited April 17, 2007 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

What is interesting about this debate is that our constitutional rights aren't always the path of least resistance for government entities. Look at the attempts to limit free speech in the name of saving us from terror for example. It would be much easier for law enforcement to fight crime and terror if they could read everyone's emails, and listen to everyone's phone calls without worry, but they can't. The freedom of speech is protected, dispite the burden is places on law enforcement. For me the right to bear arms isn't any different. It might create bad situations, but this is a constitutionally protected right.

 

As was the right for white men, and only white men to vote.

 

The framers also put in a mechanism for amending the constitution when it no longer meets our needs. It would be nice if they wrote in reasons for some of this stuff, like perhaps why there is a 2nd Amendment

 

 

Just wondering, y'all that think more people carrying would cut down on crime, does it matter the nationality of the gun owner?

[mreye]

Really? If that person pulled out their gun what if others thought that he/she was part of the shooting spree and they decided to shoot at that person. Wouldn't chaos ensue? How do you know who the good guy is when you hear shots being fired and you see someone holding a gun down the hallway? Do you just shoot at anyone holding a gun?

 

Where do we draw the line? A crazed shooting can occur anywhere not just at a school. Should people bring guns to Chuck E Cheese for their kid's birthday party in case a crazed gunman comes by?

 

The responsible person pulls out their gun, kills the shooter, calls 911 and walks out of the building.

 

Edit: I know it's not this simple. I'm just trying to give these kids a fighting chance, damnit. They didn't have that yesterday.

Edited April 17, 2007 by mreye

[Jenksismyhero]

And now you believe they thought that you should be able to go into McDonalds with a concealed weapon? They envisioned a day with Atomic weapons, mega shopping malls, and thought, hey we better put something in here to allow everyone to have a weapon?

 

You can't convince me that they could foresee today's environment. They could foresee the need for an Army against foreign invaders and would want a militia against them. They could foresee needing guns for food and probably from the native savages, and I'll even give you they thought you would need one to take up arms against a tyrannical US government.

 

If their reasoning was to protect against government tyranny, what would they have written today? Citizens should be allowed weapons equal to whatever the military has?

 

The reason I should be allowed to own a firearm is I am not a criminal and use it responsibly. I do not believe more guns in the hands of average citizens and readily available will make us less violent. In fact, I believe just the opposite. Criminals don't give a rip about penalties and gun violence. Gang bangers all ready live in a world where a rival gang could drive by and take them out.

 

From the other issues you've posted about, I'm quite surprised you are an originalist/textualist. Your new nickname to me is Scalia.

[southsider2k5]

As was the right for white men, and only white men to vote.

 

The framers also put in a mechanism for amending the constitution when it no longer meets our needs. It would be nice if they wrote in reasons for some of this stuff, like perhaps why there is a 2nd Amendment

Just wondering, y'all that think more people carrying would cut down on crime, does it matter the nationality of the gun owner?

 

So then change the constitution, not laws. I know the whole "the framers couldn't have imagined.." arguement gets made, but that works both ways. Do you think the framers ever invisioned the impact that things like computers and cellphones would have on society? Do you think the framers ever invisioned women and/or blacks as equals? Do you think they ever thought women would be wanting to kill fetuses? If there is a problem, the constitution needs to change. If people think they are safer without guns, then they need to start working on a new consitutional ammendment, just like they did when they figured out that discrimination was wrong, even when constitutionally protected.

[hitlesswonder]

As was the right for white men, and only white men to vote.

 

The framers also put in a mechanism for amending the constitution when it no longer meets our needs. It would be nice if they wrote in reasons for some of this stuff, like perhaps why there is a 2nd Amendment

Just wondering, y'all that think more people carrying would cut down on crime, does it matter the nationality of the gun owner?

 

I'll agree that just because something is in the constitution doesn't necessarily make it a good idea for society today (or even for society in the 18th century). So, if someone could convince me that private gun ownership was a bad idea, I'd be in favor of amending the constitution. But, right now, I happen to think private gun ownership is a good idea, and the constitution assures citizens the right to bear arms wherever they want.

 

I'm not sure I understand the question about nationality. I think you can argue that "People" in the 2nd amendment is meant to imply only U.S. citizens. But I think the critical criteria for gun ownership would be lack of criminal histtory, lack of history of mental health issues, and official training and certification. My reading of the constitution would restrict ownership to only US citizens, but I could probably be convinced otherwise as long as the other criteria were satisfied.

Edited April 17, 2007 by hitlesswonder

[mreye]

It would be nice if they wrote in reasons for some of this stuff, like perhaps why there is a 2nd Amendment

 

Wasn't that the Federalist Papers?

[NorthSideSox72]

Guns at home for protection. Excellent. I have no problem. If you break into my home, you will meet the business end of a glock.

 

But that has nothing to do with Jimmy at the library who has a 45 in his pants.

I think this is the best point made here. There are a lot of good reasons why people should be allowed to own firearms. But in this type of situation, even if a student had one, there is just as good a chance it ends up making it worse as making it better.

 

One of the scariest stats ever, this from the FBI (got it years ago in training, no link, sorry): in scenarios with 2 or more armed people in a shoot-out, INSIDE 10 FEET, 5 of the first 6 shots MISS, on average. And the percentage for trained law enforecement is only slightly higher than for bad guys.

 

 

Wasn't that the Federalist Papers?

Among other things.

 

I did a law review of the 2nd amendment in Con Law 2, and the great majority of judicial experts agree that "militia" did NOT mean a standing military. It was an army of the people, to be prepared against a foe which may in fact include the government. The 2nd amendment is not a protection of the standing military.

 

ETA: Another popular interperetation is that even if militia means the standing military, the structure of the words still indicates a check against such a thing. Either way, the 2nd amendment is not a protection for the military, as some have suggested.

Edited April 17, 2007 by NorthSideSox72

[southsideirish71]

I think this is the best point made here. There are a lot of good reasons why people should be allowed to own firearms. But in this type of situation, even if a student had one, there is just as good a chance it ends up making it worse as making it better.

 

One of the scariest stats ever, this from the FBI (got it years ago in training, no link, sorry): in scenarios with 2 or more armed people in a shoot-out, INSIDE 10 FEET, 5 of the first 6 shots MISS, on average. And the percentage for trained law enforcement is only slightly higher than for bad guys.

 

So those 5 rounds fired, keep traveling until their energy is spent at 1000 feet/per second(9mm). Some of them go into a wall, some of them ricochet a bit. But in a crowed area, some of those shots might hit flesh. Their is some romanticism on how quick draw mcgraw can wing a gnat at 1000 yard in the wind blindfolded. But it doesn't work that way. I remember when an officer I worked with shot a guy with a knife. The 22 year old pulled the knife out for what he said was to defend himself against some other guys outside of a bar. The officer came in on the scene, asked him to drop the knife. He didn't, and then proceeded to step in the direction of the officer with the knife, the officer fired and shot him in the stomach. The kid didn't die, wound up suing because in his mind, why didn't the officer just shoot my hand. Well it doesn't work that way. You shoot into the largest target area, the body mass, and then you go for the vital. 2 in the chest, one in the head.

[StrangeSox]

I think this is the best point made here. There are a lot of good reasons why people should be allowed to own firearms. But in this type of situation, even if a student had one, there is just as good a chance it ends up making it worse as making it better.

 

How could this situation of an unhindered shooter killing at will be any worse than it was? Honestly, I don't see how armed resistance could make the situation yesterday worse.

[NorthSideSox72]

So those 5 rounds fired, keep traveling until their energy is spent at 1000 feet/per second(9mm). Some of them go into a wall, some of them ricochet a bit. But in a crowed area, some of those shots might hit flesh. Their is some romanticism on how quick draw mcgraw can wing a gnat at 1000 yard in the wind blindfolded. But it doesn't work that way. I remember when an officer I worked with shot a guy with a knife. The 22 year old pulled the knife out for what he said was to defend himself against some other guys outside of a bar. The officer came in on the scene, asked him to drop the knife. He didn't, and then proceeded to step in the direction of the officer with the knife, the officer fired and shot him in the stomach. The kid didn't die, wound up suing because in his mind, why didn't the officer just shoot my hand. Well it doesn't work that way. You shoot into the largest target area, the body mass, and then you go for the vital. 2 in the chest, one in the head.

All true. Its not known by many, but unlike what Hollywood tells us, shooting someone is ALWAYS deadly force. You aim for center mass, and you'd better be at the right step in the force continuum when you do it. Our rounds were hydrolics (special type of hollow point) to reduce background damage, but that only helps a little bit.

 

Handy to have another ex-cop around, SSI.

 

 

How could this situation of an unhindered shooter killing at will be any worse than it was? Honestly, I don't see how armed resistance could make the situation yesterday worse.

Because if the would-be hero fails (which is a significant possibility), he probably is dead too, and might have taken others with him accidentally.

[Balta1701]

How could this situation of an unhindered shooter killing at will be any worse than it was? Honestly, I don't see how armed resistance could make the situation yesterday worse.

Well, there's always the issue of how much you're willing to risk to prevent the worst case scenario.

 

I'll give you an example. There's a remote chance an asteroid could strike the earth this year. It's not exactly likely, but it's not zero. What is the appropriate response? Should we immediately begin digging gigantic caves and keeping a million people locked up in there every year for the rest of time because the chance isn't zero?

 

You can only do so much to prevent an event like this. You can't confine everyone to their homes for the rest of time, you can't shut down every school or city in the country, and so on. Would arming people have helped? Possibly. But it's also possible that allowing people to carry in an environment like a school, especialy where people are untrained and things like alcohol could be involved, you'll wind up with more casualties due to the people carrying in the first place. And I'm not talking about just the event yesterday...if a lot of people were carrying and it wound up gradually piling up 30 bodies over the course of a year or two, it would get much less attention, but the casualties would still be there.

 

There are probably some places where it would not be a terrible idea to allow people to carry concealed weapons. I think a college campus though, especially a large one, would be a terrible place for that.

[southsideirish71]

Handy to have another ex-cop around, SSI.

Because if the would-be hero fails (which is a significant possibility), he probably is dead too, and might have taken others with him accidentally.

 

 

Lets say the Hero vanquishes the bad guy, in a 15 shot gun match at the ok corral. If any of the students get shot, winged, or crippled because of the hero's gun play and they can match it to the hero's gun with ballistics. How many of those same happy students are going to sue the living crap out of Mr. Hero. Because I can tell you, if an officer shoots at a bad guy, and the bullet misses and hits a friendly. He is sued, the department is sued and the fun begins. Hell you have to be careful in police pursuits. My brother is a cop right now, and he got sued because of an incident where he chased after a 15 year old gang banger who stole a car. He stopped his pursuit after 1 mile due to his departments requirements. The kid went another 5 miles down the road at a high rate of speed, and then flipped the car. They sued.

 

If you shoot the guy in one shot head shot, and no other collateral damage. Awesome, good shot. If your bullet misses and takes out a girls spleen you are poor for the rest of your life.

 

If you want to be the police, then make a career change. Otherwise keep your guns at home, the range, and on a turkey hunt. Not at the mall or the mcdonalds.

Edited April 17, 2007 by southsideirish71

[EvilMonkey]

But it's also possible that allowing people to carry in an environment like a school, especialy where people are untrained and things like alcohol could be involved, you'll wind up with more casualties due to the people carrying in the first place.

That statement right there assumes that every Tom Dick and Crazy-ass Harry who wants to carry, would be ABLE to carry. Who would go for a carry permit? A campus that size, you may only have 20 people who would even WANT to carry, much less pass a background to be able to carry, so again, the mass hysteria of gunfights in the hallways is just a strawman used to create fear. One guy in any one of those roooms with a concealed carry, would have been able to prevent many of those deaths. Even if it just occupied the gunman in that room for a while longer, others would have had more time to escape, get help, barricade themselves in rooms, etc.

[Texsox]

So then change the constitution, not laws. I know the whole "the framers couldn't have imagined.." arguement gets made, but that works both ways. Do you think the framers ever invisioned the impact that things like computers and cellphones would have on society? Do you think the framers ever invisioned women and/or blacks as equals? Do you think they ever thought women would be wanting to kill fetuses? If there is a problem, the constitution needs to change. If people think they are safer without guns, then they need to start working on a new consitutional ammendment, just like they did when they figured out that discrimination was wrong, even when constitutionally protected.

 

I think we are agreeing, you did see the y'all aren't taking my gun away statement?

 

I think the framers of the constitution were brilliant. In all of history it is arguably the second best written document. (insert your Bible here for number one). I think they created a living document that has proven the test of time by being flexible.

 

When they wrote the Constitution, I couldn't imagine how most lived without a gun. Feeding yourself would have been difficult on the frontier. Native Americans and buffalo may disagree but they tamed the west as much as the steel plow.

 

Today, I'm not convinced the framers would have built in the same protections. They are not necessary for survival.

[BigSqwert]

We should all be able to bring a concealed gun anywhere we want to to (school, church, work, Sox game, etc) because you never know when a crazed gunman might go postal. In fact we should all carry a fire extinguisher, snake anti-venom, automated defibrillator, and a gas mask on us at all times as well because you never know if you'll be trapped in a fire, bit by a snake, witness a heart attack, or be attacked by mustard gas.

[StrangeSox]

Wooo! Go straw man, go!

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, there's always the issue of how much you're willing to risk to prevent the worst case scenario.

 

I'll give you an example. There's a remote chance an asteroid could strike the earth this year. It's not exactly likely, but it's not zero. What is the appropriate response? Should we immediately begin digging gigantic caves and keeping a million people locked up in there every year for the rest of time because the chance isn't zero?

 

You can only do so much to prevent an event like this. You can't confine everyone to their homes for the rest of time, you can't shut down every school or city in the country, and so on. Would arming people have helped? Possibly. But it's also possible that allowing people to carry in an environment like a school, especialy where people are untrained and things like alcohol could be involved, you'll wind up with more casualties due to the people carrying in the first place. And I'm not talking about just the event yesterday...if a lot of people were carrying and it wound up gradually piling up 30 bodies over the course of a year or two, it would get much less attention, but the casualties would still be there.

 

There are probably some places where it would not be a terrible idea to allow people to carry concealed weapons. I think a college campus though, especially a large one, would be a terrible place for that.

 

 

All good and true but the fact is there are states that allow concealed weapons right now. The fears you speak of have not happened. So why assume they would in other parts of the country? I'm failing to see the logic here.

 

And really, crazy things happen all the time with police officers enforcing the laws. Bullets ricochet and hit unintended targets, police chases often end in collateral damage, etc etc. None of these were intended and all of these are considered acceptable loses in the name of enforcing the law. So whats the difference if there are a few occasions throughout the country where innocent people get hurt or killed?

[EvilMonkey]

We should all be able to bring a concealed gun anywhere we want to to (school, church, work, Sox game, etc) because you never know when a crazed gunman might go postal. In fact we should all carry a fire extinguisher, snake anti-venom, automated defibrillator, and a gas mask on us at all times as well because you never know if you'll be trapped in a fire, bit by a snake, witness a heart attack, or be attacked by mustard gas.

Quit going to such crazy extremes for situations you know never exist. It dilutes what little credible argument you have. Noone argued anywhere that everyoone should be able to carry a gun. You and Tex made those assumptions in your fear-based statements. Southside irish raised the best points so far, without resorting to gross exagerations.

[Jenksismyhero]

We should all be able to bring a concealed gun anywhere we want to to (school, church, work, Sox game, etc) because you never know when a crazed gunman might go postal. In fact we should all carry a fire extinguisher, snake anti-venom, automated defibrillator, and a gas mask on us at all times as well because you never know if you'll be trapped in a fire, bit by a snake, witness a heart attack, or be attacked by mustard gas.

 

Ha, isn't it funny though that you can, if you wanted, do all of those things?