The second amendment of the constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. As the specter of gun violence continues in our workplaces, roads and schools, the question keeps arising: do guns keep you safe, or just increase the level of violence?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
How many school shootings are "acceptable"? I think the NRA's answer diverges wildly from the majority of the population. Kids aren't made safer at school with guns easily available to their classmates or the people that decide to wander in.
The issues are
1) possession of guns are totally in our legislature's control
2) the majority of people would prefer that guns not be easy to possess, but because they don't pay lobbyists at the rate the gun manufacturers and owners do, legislatures ignore them over those that do contribute.
3) disturbed kids and adults have proven, repeatedly, that they can use the current system to easily possess as many guns as they need to cause mass death and injury.
The NRA's solution of
a) reminding people they should be more responsible
b) asking the government to ensure no mentally disturbed person possesses a gun (but not by any restriction on the 2nd amendment, mind you)
c) encourage the use of a background check system which they fought tooth and nail against when it was proposed and when it needs funding
is a good summary of why the NRA is so reviled. None of these solutions have a realistic chance of fixing the problem. All of these points seem defensible, at first glance, and give them good cover when nobody bother reading past the headline (and most don't). But when you take a close look at what they're doing, they are simply throwing out deceptive, distracting arguments to keep guns on the streets and allow gun violence to continue unchecked.
They have the gall to stand up after public shootings to say this never would have happened if the victims had been armed. As if we all desire a wild west shoot out as the best way to prevent gun violence. Or insult our intelligence by assuming we accept the idea that the average gun owner is qualified to start shooting in a public place at anyone they perceive to be a threat.
Our kids have to go through metal detectors at schools, have their bags and lockers searched and other forms of security as a response to the "need" to keep guns on the streets. Ridiculous. Since the NRA has no shame in their valuing gun ownership privileges over innocent people's lives, it would be nice if the voters and our Congress did.
- nbkwx55
September 9, 2008 9:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
lets talk about those school shootings
those 'no guns allowed' signs don't seem to be working from the mass murderers standpoint, so maybe we should try a new approach, like right to self defense. Why shouldn't I, a PhD student, legal to carry every but campus, be afforded the same protection of my rights? why not my professors? faculty? staff?
the one consistent thing about school shootings, all the honest and good people listened. Not one honest, good, person was armed- because they listened to those signs. Unfortunately, homicidal, deranged killers, ignored them- and people were slaughtered.
Kids don't need to go through metal detectors cause of fa 'need' to keep guns on the street- don't make such statements. Kids go through those metal detectors to appease higher ups that their signs just need one more step to work. First we hang a no gun sign, then metal detectors, then searches, then cops in buildings. How much money, and how many lives, need to be thrown at this problem to realize WE NEED A NEW APPROACH.
Columbine was committed by 2 crazy people who broke 22+ gun laws- just gun laws. we don't need more gun laws. we need to strip away the crap ones, stop new crap ones from being written, and give money to our police to do their job. How much money was wasted on those things that don't work?
Most people are good and smart- and will make good, smart choices. They will do the same regarding defense of their own lives. Trust them.
- MikesSpot September 10, 2008 3:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I was pointing out that the current system of gun control as advocated by the NRA is a farce - they tried to fight background checks and now fight the funding for it all the while claiming it's all we need combined with better enforcement of gun laws to keep everyone safe. Somehow they advocate the need for a stronger state for enforcement but actively work to limit its power through funding. It's becoming clear that no level of reasonable funding can keep guns out of the wrong people's hands, so let's be practical and take them off the street altogether.
To your point on self-enablement: If you ask your classmates if they want you armed with a handgun in class, in the hallway, in the library and on campus paired up with your personal judgment of who poses a threat to yourself or anyone else AND granted the right to shoot at will, I will bet you a large sum of money they will overwhelmingly vote "no". A graduate student at UNC-Chapel Hill started picking off pedestrians downtown with his gun and had to be shot dead by the police . Good, smart choices were lacking by him.
After you lose that vote, go ask your local patrolmen assigned to cover your campus if they prefer all students to be armed. If your logic is sound then they should welcome the wave of deterrence that spreads over campus. Instead, they will envision the fistfights at parties that escalate into gunfights, the drunken arguments that turn into shootings, the accident rate in dorm rooms as guns are accidentally discharged while being shown off, etc. etc. If there's one thing most college students lack it's a consistent supply of good, smart choices and the police on campus can cite example after example.
So I agree with part of your posting - we need a new approach. That approach is banning handguns and most high powered "assault" rifles. Columbine was an example of how easy it is for disturbed people to not be prevented by any reasonably enforceable system from possessing the weapons needed to kill scores of people quickly. So let's stop trying to enforce unrealistic permits and background checks and just admit that it's a bad idea to let the average person possess most deadly weapons and ban their sale altogether.
Your right to self-defense, by the way, remains intact. Get all the tasers you want. Load up on pepper spray and knives. You won't have the ability to kill 6 people in quick succession, but you can protect yourself. If you declare that only criminals will have guns under this proposal then I'll say you're right, but currently only criminals have military -grade machine guns, grenades and explosive weapons but that doesn't mean we need civilians to be armed accordingly. The trade off under a ban is that fewer criminals will have guns and their use in escalating violence from simply causing injuries to causing multiple deaths will be reduced. The process of getting guns off the street will go faster than I believe most fear - there will be heavy incentives to go after known criminals who haven't been convicted simply to put them away on an easy-to-prove gun possession charge. As black market guns become more valuable, they won't be "wasted" on random acts of violence. They will fall into the same category as weapons we currently reserve for the military - and noone would be afraid that common criminals would use them for everyday crimes or that mentally unbalanced people will buy them from a store or steal them from an acquaintance.
- nbkwx55 June 23, 2009 1:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
First off- Kudos to you for commenting on a thread 8 months later. I'm not joking either, that definitely shows your passion for your point of view. I respect that immensely and thank you for input, however much I disagree with it.
With all due respect, I won't ask my classmates a damn thing, nor do I care about your suggestion of surveying them. I do not ask them about their activities, and they won't ask me about mine. So long as everyone is operating in a manner that is non damaging to other people and is legal , I could care less.
And who grants someone the right to shoot at will? are you assuming because you have a gun you'll use it? Do you run pedestrians down with a car when your driving because the opportunity exists? that is a farce of an argument and you know it. If it were true, legal concealed carry permit holders would be committing mass homicides in droves already- and that just does not happen.
and who said arm all students? where did that come from? no where. you invented that. No one is advocating arming everyone. it is not a logical conclusion to my argument or any argument I have seen presented on behalf of the pro-gun community. Arming everyone is a setup to your argument about criminals and guns . Its leading and you know it. I have more respect for you than that, don't try to slip that by me either- its kind of insulting.
Why not let those people who are deemed capable by the state and pass the necessary background checks, classes, and other required steps to arm themselves- as they can everywhere else? that is what I'm suggesting. Your arguing fiercely, but your not arguing against my points. Your fighting points that your making up.
and if all this violence would erupt as soon as guns were introduced, why hasn't that happened at the schools that allow students concealed carry? its been years since the students have been able to exercise their rights, and yet no incidents. . .
your new approach isn't new. it failed in Australia, England, south Africa, Mexico, India and Germany. Your idea of getting rid of all guns is completely unrealistic and nothing more than an impossible fantasy. Your suggestion will fail as miserably as prohibition did.
Self defense by the way, does not remain intact. Nor do my constitutional rights. Your right about criminals still having access to guns- and military grade ones. Why not disarm good citizens? You want me to defend myself with a knife or a taser against criminals with long guns and handguns? Really? thats your idea of adequate self defense?
Citizens are not going to be armed 'likewise' to the military. another made up argument on your part. You show me where citizens can buy law rockets, grenades, claymores, gaos, c4, and whatever else.
If bans worked- Mexico wouldn't be having the violence they have. And I know you followed the news to know that despite what early reports said, most of those guns confiscated did NOT come from US civilian markets. The military stuff came from corrupt officials outside of America doing backdoor deals for weapons given to those countries by us for their national defense. Your suggestion does nothing to fight corruption. I do not think that the availability of guns as you describe it will ever dry up. Corrupt people in key places will always exist- as will human ingenuity. A determined person can make some really nasty weapons pretty easily with things available around the house that can kill or hurt an awful lot of people. You can't legislate away all of these things. It is impossible.
lets assume your right- and reducing gun sales will limit criminals- then why did fatal stabbings go up in England after a gun ban, when violence across the board ALSO went up? if knives are so much less lethal, why did it kill more officers?
Your willing to trade our rights and our lives for a future Utopian dream that will not, i fear, ever happen. I cannot agree with your assessment. We both want the same thing- less criminals committing acts of violence, we just disagree on how to accomplish it. I have yet to see anything that is remotely convincing to show me that guns cause higher levels of violence. Everything that seems to even begin to point that direction has imaginary statistics and completely misleading (intentionally) statements.
I feel your assessment shows a lack of trust in your fellow citizens- and one I do not agree with.
- MikesSpot June 23, 2009 2:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So here's one point we clearly disagree on - if the majority of your students don't want you armed in the classroom they are sharing with you, then I believe you shouldn't be armed. I would extend that to a city, state or nation. Guns allow people to perpetrate violence and kill other people on a large scale and with little effort. Their utility to society is negligible compared to anything else that kills at the same rate and yes, I'm assuming the "millions" of self-assessed crimes prevented by gun owners are in fact not real and that the true number is much, much lower. Since the most significant effect of your gun is on the people around you I think they get to make the call.
My analogy of arming everybody was to refute your logic that we need a new approach to stop school shootings and that approach is to allow students to be armed at school. At some point funding the police better was also raised but didn't seem to get much airtime so I focused on why arming a civilian population, especially college students, was a bad idea. In general most people's judgment, even those people that pass a background check, shouldn't be used to decide who gets shot. There are alot of people I'd like to see use their drivers license as well, but luckily cars have been designed to not kill people. The exact opposite is true of guns . The "cars kill alot of people so why not ban them?" argument also tries to make an object with high social utility and some harmful side effects like a car equivalent to an object designed to kill people. All the drivers I've ever encountered have never tried to argue that the lethal ability of their car will deter crime and everyone should rest easier knowing they can run over anyone they sense is a criminal threat. Yet somehow you argue your personal ability to kill people with a gun should be protected because it involves the same level of judgment as operating a car.
Please take the foreign country examples to their logical conclusion. No developed country (those with a reasonable chance to enforce things like a ban on gun sales ) has a gun or violent crime rate even approaching the US. The UK, Germany and Australia are all good examples. In the short term economic factors drive crime much more than gun ownership rates. And I'm sure stabbings went up as gun availability went down. I'd have to argue India, Mexico and South Africa are all developing countries where the rule of law is still evolving. You should measure their effectiveness of collecting taxes , enforcing building codes and stopping corruption while you're at it.
- nbkwx55 June 23, 2009 5:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We agree on some things- violent crime in general in the US is higher than a lot of places- even if you remove gun violence ( murder rate for instance) As far as developed nations go, we are fairly violent. I think that is by in large the result of our immense diversity. I forget the paper, but there was a study some time ago that suggested homogeneity in a population is less violent than a heterogeneous mix like we have here.
The UK, Germany, and Austrailia all have much lower populations, much more 'similar' populations, and still suffer the effects of violence. I concede I didn't make this point clearly- but what I was getting at is that even in a situation that is far more controllable with a much lower population, I don't feel the controls your suggesting work.
As for the driver thing- I agree its a crap analogy- but its one most people are familiar with. I think a better analogy was when I compared it to alcohol and prohibition. Though we do not have a constitutional right to alcohol like we do guns - if I follow your logic they are equivalent. Neither is necessary in your mind and does more harm than good.
If I can make that assumption- then I have to say I don't think your style of control will work. I just feel like history more supports my argument.
I was just looking at some numbers on line- and maybe we can meet in the middle.
Comparing NYC to London- populations are within 1 million people of each other, with NYC being slightly larger. Police budgets are close when you switch with current exchange rates.
however- London has 7x the amount of crime NYC has. (mind you the UK doesn't tally offenses committed by offenders under the age of 16). whats the big difference? NYC has 40% more cops patrolling than London. Now maybe crime is grossly under reported in NYC. I lived there for 5.5 years- and I would believe that there is some definate under reporting going on to make it look safer than it is- but I'm not sure even if you inflate the rate for NYC and deflate London for some reason that they would be close. If any of my point is to be considered let it be this: Gun control is an expensive exercise that at best strips people of rights, and at worst is an exercise in futility that does not reduce violent crime.
Even if the US numbers of crimes prevented with guns is inflated- by say 50 fold, than that estimated 2 million preventions still becomes 40,000- 4x higher than the US murder rate in 2007 with guns (just over 10,000) over a nearly 700 of which, were justifiable shootings by law enforcement and civilians in self defense cases.
I think your focusing on the violent crime rate in the US and equating that to gun crime- and they just aren't the same.I disagree with your methods, but maybe we can both agree that our money as tax payers, our safety as people, and our rights as citizens are best protected by something that isn't gun control .
- MikesSpot June 23, 2009 8:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"if the majority of your students don't want you armed in the classroom they are sharing with you, then I believe you shouldn't be armed. I would extend that to a city, state or nation."
No, no, no.
Rights guaranteed in the Constitution, i.e. the supreme law of the land, can't be denied just because they're unpopular. So if I start speaking out against gay marriage in San Francisco they should be able to take my right to free speech away? If I commit a hate- crime in a predominately black city should they be able to take my right to a fair trial away? If I do a news report over a corrupt presidential administration should they be able to take my freedom of the press rights away from me because the president's popular?
Our rights are not to be compromised just because they're unpopular.
"Guns allow people to perpetrate violence and kill other people on a large scale and with little effort."
Only in the hands of a criminal. I'm not a criminal, so why should I be restricted when it comes to myself owning guns ?
- mhphoto July 4, 2009 9:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Most School Shooters Use Guns Taken from Home
- From Ceasefire PA
By Ceasefire PA - Working to Prevent Gun Violence
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
lets call this, a history lesson
The most violent, tragic school tragedy in American History was the Bath School Disaster of 1927. 45 were killed and 58 wounded, most of which were children younger than 6th grade.
It was perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe, A school board member who was upset over a property tax increase. He used a series of explosions to carry out his deadly deed.
Don't talk about ease of committing terrible atrocities without reviewing, mourning, and respecting the most tragic one of its kind to occur in our nation. Do not imply that the tragic events of school shootings are limited to teen perpetrators- that is false. Do not say teens commonly experiment with drugs and alcohol, and then making a suggestive statement like teens often think of suicide.
Those things may all be true- but are not all true of each other. Your mixing a series of different studies from different samples and presenting a picture that is not representative of American Culture.
Of course the presence of a gun would increase the likelihood of injury in those circumstances- your talking about a suicidal, homicidal, drug addicted, intoxicated, mentally unstable, depressed person. The presence of a shoe string would increase that person's likelihood of injury.
your taking the most extreme, hypothetical, deranged situation- stripping inconvenient facts- and trying to present it as some form of reality. thats not debating- its generating a fiction.
- MikesSpot
September 8, 2008 9:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.