Gun Control in the USA

[Nick]

The day of the mall shooting there was a man, named Nick Meli age 22, who has a concealed carry permit. When he heard the shots being fired he ran into danger and pointed his glock 22 at the shooter. "As I was going down to pull (the trigger), I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," Meli said. Meli never took that shot, but the masked man still saw Meli with his glock. The next shot fired was the masked man killing himself.

Three died that day, the shooter and two others, Steve Forsyth, 45, of West Linn, and Cindy Yuille, 54, of Northeast Portland. (Source: Article in The Oregonian by Lynne Terry)

In the school shooting, there was a report that an unarmed teacher tried to go towards the shooter; I still wonder what would have been the result if instead of moving to the gunman with no weapon, the teacher had ducked, pulled out a weapon and fired. But of course, under our current laws and policies that can not happen.

I guess this raises the question of safety in the classroom if teachers are armed. Some are advocating this. How does this work practically? If it is kept in a gun safe in the room somewhere, is there enough time to get it out? My guess is probably not. In a room full of children, is it acceptable to store the gun anywhere other than a safe? Is it acceptable to carry it on yourself?

Teachers packing heat raises many questions.

 

[Kaliani]

The pro-gun control will reject calls for more citizens to carry guns.

The gun owners will reject calls for stricter gun laws.

It would appear each side needs a Plan B with which to reach the other.

 

[BornAgain]

In Michigan we have an open carry law which means a registered gun owner can carry visibly, like the cowboys. However, I don't see that. I heard about a college student around town that was carrying a registered rifle walking the streets in Ann Arbor and was questioned and sent on his way. As I posted earlier my husband carries but I rarely ever see his guns, that is why they call it a "concealed weapons" permit.

There are ways teachers can carry a concealed weapon and often wonder if the principal who took measures to secure the school was carrying a weapon would have made a difference.

 

[Sparkey]

I guess this raises the question of safety in the classroom if teachers are armed. Some are advocating this. How does this work practically? If it is kept in a gun safe in the room somewhere, is there enough time to get it out? My guess is probably not. In a room full of children, is it acceptable to store the gun anywhere other than a safe? Is it acceptable to carry it on yourself?

Teachers packing heat raises many questions.

I'm just glad that I live in a country where we can raise questions and discuss these things without fear of being labeled a "terrorist" or subversive. Your question about how much time would it take for a teacher to retrieve a gun from a locked gun safe during an active shooter scenario assumes that the shooting started in the classroom where the gun was located. If the teacher was in a different room, or if the principal was armed there would be enough time to secure the hallway at least. I've not put any thought into school tactics but if that path was to be considered there would be plenty enough experts that could give mandatory training and instruction.

My previous post compared the results of the two recent shootings and tried to take certain facts into consideration.

• Most 'active shooter' scenarios play themselves out in less than 10 minutes.
• Police response typically takes longer than 10 minutes.
• Most active shooters do not die from police fire, but instead shoot themselves when they encounter lethal force in resistance (cop or not).

When looking at statistics for multiple shootings it can be seen that the worst offenders choose areas where strict gun-control laws/policies are in effect. The Debate about gun control rose to a peak last July at a Colorado Cinemark theater. Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance. According to J. R. Lott in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences magazine, Vol 37, Issue 4, shooters often choose gun-free zones: How do Multiple Victim Public Shooters Decide Where to Attack? (They choose "gun free" zones)

 

[Drew]

The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to own guns.

Not that simple. Here is the text:

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.

Its clear that this statement is at least open to a reading where the possession of a gun needs to be tied to membership in a "well-regulated militia".

What militia was Adam Lanza in?

According to CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, there was a period in US history where the Supreme Court interpreted this amendment as not giving the typical private citizen the right to bear arms. In the last few decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted it the other way - citizens do indeed have the right to have arms.

The point is this: The original statement is clearly ambiguous as to intent. So it is not at all clear that 2nd amendment guarantees the everyday citizen the right to bear arms.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
It's ironic that the majority of America's adults have a constitutional right to bear arms. And gun sales have skyrocketed in the past decade. But when demented males show up at malls, and churches, and schools, and movie theaters, and fast food restaurants; and start executing people at random: who's shooting back at them? Nobody is shooting back at them and that's because people's guns are at home, where the likelihood of ever needing them for the defense of life and/or property is highly unlikely; viz: we don't need more gun control; what we really need is better shooter control.

In other words; we don't need to take guns away from America's armed citizens. On the contrary, we need to encourage America's armed citizens to carry their guns with them when they leave the relative safety of their homes if we're ever to have any hope of curtailing mad men.

An excellent non-lethal alternative to a gun is bear spray. Now don't confuse bear spray with pepper spray. Bear spray doesn't squirt a narrow little stream of liquid. It's formulated to set up a cloud of nasty mist between you and the bear. You don't have to be close to the bear for it to work either as bear spray propellants are strong and can shoot up to twenty feet whereas you have to be up close and personal to use pepper spray.

Another benefit is that you don't have to hit a bear in the eyes in order for bear spray to be effective. All you have to do is generate a cloud of mist between you and the bear and it will not come through it to get you; and neither will a demented man with a gun. The stuff is really potent.

I accidentally released just a tiny little puff in my family room and could not go in there to open a window without a half-mask industrial respirator fitted with a chemical filter. It literally strangled my windpipe and made me gag and choke; and the mist lingered too. If a teacher were to fog a hallway with that stuff, I guarantee you no shooter, no matter how deranged, would come through it to their classroom. And if he's already in the room, one hefty shot of that stuff in <O:p</O:phis direction will force him to exit pronto and the only danger to the kids will be temporary coughing and gagging which as a trade-off is a whole lot better than bullet wounds.

Buen Camino<O:p</O:p
/

 

[Sparkey]

Not that simple. Here is the text:

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.

Its clear that this statement is at least open to a reading where the possession of a gun needs to be tied to membership in a "well-regulated militia".

What militia was Adam Lanza in?

According to CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, there was a period in US history where the Supreme Court interpreted this amendment as not giving the typical private citizen the right to bear arms. In the last few decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted it the other way - citizens do indeed have the right to have arms.

The point is this: The original statement is clearly ambiguous as to intent. So it is not at all clear that 2nd amendment guarantees the everyday citizen the right to bear arms.

Drew, I would respectfully submit that the United States Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court and that you are correct to say that the "Supreme Court has interpreted it" [as] "citizens [of the United States] do indeed have the right to [bear] arms."

Your suggestion that it isn't that simple only means that you may disagree with the highest authority of this land. That is your right, but you are not allowed to apply your opinion to others. There was a time when Civil Rights were not guaranteed to slaves, do you suggest that your principle of doubt be applied in all cases or just regarding gun control?

 

[Drew]

Teachers packing heat raises many questions.

I think you are being very generous here. Frankly, the notion is absurd, and I am quite confident that almost all your fellow Australians agree. When Canadians hear of this idea of teachers having guns, the response generally is a mixture of disbelief and laughter.

With all respect, there is a "problem" in at least a corner of American culture (just like we Canadians and you Australians have our problems): It is this frankly ridiculous notion that society will be better off if we arm the "good guys" (like teachers). I suggest that nowhere else in the civilized world does this idea have any purchase whatsoever.

Alan Dershowitz point out that the "gun culture" is actually not pervasive in American culture - there is a substantial fraction of Americans who understand what the rest of us know to be the case: there is no need in society for people (except the military and the police) to have assault weapons. Piers Morgan has lost his temper on CNN about this lately, and I entirely sympathize with him.

When you have a person who would fight against restricting assault weapons, you are simply not dealing with a rational person (at least in relation to this particular issue).

 

[Drew]

Drew, I would respectfully submit that the United States Constitution is interpreted by the United States Supreme Court and that you are correct to say that the "Supreme Court has interpreted it" [as] "citizens [of the United States] do indeed have the right to [bear] arms."

Your suggestion that it isn't that simple only means that you may disagree with the highest authority of this land. That is your right, but you are not allowed to apply your opinion to others.

Did you read my post carefully? The facts, as I understant them are these (at least as reported by Jeffrey Toobin - a well-respected legal commentator): there has been a period in US history there the US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment does not give the general citizen the right to bear arms.

 

[Drew]

The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a natural right that IS NOT restricted to maintaining a militia, it's an INDIVIDUAL right. And it is NOT restricted to what someone else thinks a person needs a gun for, so, it's not about militia, it's not about hunting, it's not about target practice. It's about a person's right to self-defense as he understands it.

Not quite. Here is a direct quote from legal expert Jeffrey Toobin (I added bolding):

The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,†trumped the second part, the “bear arms†clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

To me, this reads as a rather clear that, at least at some point in your history, the Supreme Court saw this amendment as not conferring gun rights on individual citizens.

Is Mr. Toobin not telling us the truth?

 

[Sparkey]

I would ask you to address my comment that a similar situation can also be seen as fact: There has been a period in US history where the Constitution did not prohibit slavery (prior to the 13th Amendment in 1864).

Case Law (not your opinion, nor the opinion of a lawyer that you like or agree with) establishes the fact that citizens of the United States are allowed to keep and bear arms. In June of 2008, Supreme Court Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court that in part said:

• [t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning. "Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."
  
• The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

1. Operative Clause.

a. "Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a "right of the people."

Source:FindLaw® For Legal Professionals: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

If your point is merely that at some point in history the Constitution was interpreted differently and so there should be stricter gun control or that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee individual rights, then you have failed to establish your point very well. Consider how your "principle of doubt" would be applied to Slavery, Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage. You've got to do more than suggest "it isn't that simple" when you want to overturn the rulings of the Supreme Court.

 

[Vanguard]

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.

Its clear that this statement is at least open to a reading where the possession of a gun needs to be tied to membership in a "well-regulated militia".

While I can respect your opinion and interpretation of this, allow me to speak on it, since I am in law enforcement and study law.

A well regulated militia simply refers to the citizens that come together in defense of something. It does not say army, navy, cavalry or auxillary. A militia is literally a group of citizens. Those citizens are granted the right to bear [carry] arms, and no government, king, emperor, etc. can take that right away. The founding fathers made sure of this.

As far as membership in a militia goes, every American citizen has that. We, as citizens of the USA, are well regulated by way of voter registration, Social Security numbers, Driver License numbers, Selective Service, etc. It is your sovereign right, and duty, to protect our country in the event of invasion. If an enemy makes it past our military, it will be local militias that give them hell...Wolverines!!!

 

[wingodsays]

I don't see Gun Control as an answer. The fact is criminals will get a gun when they want to use one. It doesn't have to be legal - they are criminals. And, I think a lot of the shootings over the years are directly related to the deprivation of society... the lack of God... the lack of belief in general in a Higher Power or a Higher moral standard. Without a moral compass, how can you find truth. I know that if everyone had a conceal and carry (the majority are responsible people who have them). Criminals would think twice about random acts of violence or acts of violence to the magnitude we have seen recently. I am not a fan of guns. I don't like them around children especially. But when responsible adults have them for protection of their household etc, it is a good thing. There was a man at the Clackamus Town Center shooting that had a conceal and carry and his weapon with him . He did not fire because he did not have a clear shot - but the gunman saw him and the next shot the gunman took was his own life. I do think the gunman realized he wasn't going to get another shot out before he was undone and hence took his own life. Without that young man with the conceal and carry, how many more might have been injured or killed even.

Red tape on guns only makes it more difficult on those that are HONEST to protect themselves. The criminal (especially calculated ones) do not take the time for red tape. And if they do, they really don't care what is going to happen to them anyway. Regulating guns only protects the criminals really. If gun control should exist - it should be more about educating users on how to protect their children from handling them wrongly and how to protect firearms from theft.

 

[Nick]

I'm just glad that I live in a country where we can raise questions and discuss these things without fear of being labeled a "terrorist" or subversive.

Me too.

Your question about how much time would it take for a teacher to retrieve a gun from a locked gun safe during an active shooter scenario assumes that the shooting started in the classroom where the gun was located. If the teacher was in a different room, or if the principal was armed there would be enough time to secure the hallway at least. I've not put any thought into school tactics but if that path was to be considered there would be plenty enough experts that could give mandatory training and instruction.

I'm sure it can be worked out. These are things we have to consider, because as I'm sure you'll agree, the gun needs to be in the safe. But hopefully there is actual armed security at the school too.

It's sad that it's come to that. A school shouldn't need armed security or teachers carrying weapons. And this is the place where kids get their education.

 

[Nick]

I think you are being very generous here. Frankly, the notion is absurd, and I am quite confident that almost all your fellow Australians agree. When Canadians hear of this idea of teachers having guns, the response generally is a mixture of disbelief and laughter.

With all respect, there is a "problem" in at least a corner of American culture (just like we Canadians and you Australians have our problems): It is this frankly ridiculous notion that society will be better off if we arm the "good guys" (like teachers). I suggest that nowhere else in the civilized world does this idea have any purchase whatsoever.

Alan Dershowitz point out that the "gun culture" is actually not pervasive in American culture - there is a substantial fraction of Americans who understand what the rest of us know to be the case: there is no need in society for people (except the military and the police) to have assault weapons. Piers Morgan has lost his temper on CNN about this lately, and I entirely sympathize with him.

When you have a person who would fight against restricting assault weapons, you are simply not dealing with a rational person (at least in relation to this particular issue).

Here is the problem with your argument: you are using Canadian thinking and trying to apply what works in Canada to an American context. That's a danger for me too, because Australian culture is so different to that in America. So yes, people in Australia cannot understand the American fixation upon guns. That's why gun control in Australia makes sense, because there's not the demand for a large black market. In the US, that's just not the situation. You can't just say, "well it works in places like Japan, so it should work in the US". You need to change the culture first, and that will take a lot of time. If gun control is enforced before a cultural shift, then you have armed criminals and defenseless innocent people. Does that sound like a good situation?

 

[Drew]

Strict gun control laws - or even an outright ban - will not work any better to control gun related violence and deaths than strict drug or alcohol laws - even outright bans - has controlled drug and alcohol violence and deaths.

How do you know this? There are some significant ways in which the alcohol / drug analogy probably breaks down, related to matters of technology.

On the surface of it, it certainly appears to be much easier to produce illicit alcohol / drugs than to produce illicit guns. A gun, especially an assault weapon, is a relatively complex item of technology that typically requires a relatively complex manufacturing process. Now perhaps it is easier to make a gun in your basement than I imagine, but that case needs to be made.

These differences are important. To the extent that it is technically difficult / expensive / risky to create a banned item "in your basement", the banning of the item should indeed have a beneficial effect.

 

[stovebolts]

I guess this raises the question of safety in the classroom if teachers are armed. Some are advocating this. How does this work practically? If it is kept in a gun safe in the room somewhere, is there enough time to get it out? My guess is probably not. In a room full of children, is it acceptable to store the gun anywhere other than a safe? Is it acceptable to carry it on yourself?

Teachers packing heat raises many questions.

It's simply called gun awareness. I have guns in my home as do most of my neighbors and my son is very much aware of them. Guns only become weapons when they are used inappropriately.

Actually, we just got a new Kentucky Long Rifle (muzzle loader) we're planning on playing with this weekend. Who knows, maybe we'll get a buck! Muzzle loaders are awesome, they make a big boom and will put a big hole right through a deer. Drops them in less than 10 feet. Way funner to shoot than our Semi automatic Reuger with a 30 round clip.

By the way, we also have a baseball bat next to our bed. Statistically more people are killed with baseball bats each year than guns.. Imagine that huh? Yet you never hear of a baseball bat primarily identified as a weapon.

 

[Drew]

Here is the problem with your argument: you are using Canadian thinking and trying to apply what works in Canada to an American context.

I certainly understand that there is a difference between American culture and Canadian culture. But please tell us exactly how such differences make it remotely sensible that tens of thousands of regular human beings (teachers) should enter a classroom armed. These are not trained gun users. Besides, they are people who are no more spared the ravages of mental illness or simply evil intent than anyone else.

The basic flaw of in the "teachers should be armed" argument is the very same flaw that exists in the "I need a gun in my house" argument.

And the error is in forgetting that in the 99.99999% of the time the gun is not needed to fend off a bad guy, it is still there.

Still there to be used in anger against a cheating spouse (for guns in the home).

Still there to be used by a mentally deranged teacher (for armed teachers);

Still there to be used in a moment of impulsive rage (both scenarios);

Still there to be used to commit suicide.

There is so much incorrect reasoning used to support the "pro-gun" position, I do not know where to begin.

But are you willing to tell me that you - Nick - truly believe that even in American culture, the overall benefits of arming teachers (and I do not deny that in rare scenarios, it might be a benefit) outweigh the negatives.

I am prepared to presented peer-reviewed data that shows that having a gun in the house actually increases your risk of violent death.

Why would we expect anything different in the classroom?

 

[reba]

How do you know this?

Because bad guys don't pay attention to law.

 

[Drew]

Because bad guys don't pay attention to law.

That does not address my question. My point was that if guns are more technically difficult to produce "in your basement" than alchohol is (and producing alchohol is pretty easy), then the argument from the analogy to the ineffectiveness of alcohol prohibition breaks down.