0
billvon

School shooting solutions

Recommended Posts

JerryBaumchen

Hi Bill,

Quote

Greater accessibility of guns.



IMO our access to guns has not changed.

The guns have changed; they are now mass killing devices.

Jerry Baumchen



No, I really disagree with that. When I was in high school there were a couple of times friends or I talked about using a handgun but had no idea where to get one. I can't honestly say how things would have turned out if we had, but we couldn't lay hands on one and we sure as hell couldn't afford to buy one either legally or hot. Now I have several friends and a couple of brothers who have them just laying around the house and if I wanted one I could steal it in less than an hour. They'd be pissed when they found out but if I was going on a spree I wouldn't care. I wonder how many handguns the average teen stumbles across when searching the old man's room for porn these days. Well, ok, ignoring the fact that they probably just use the computer for that, but you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Church

***Hi Bill,

Quote

Greater accessibility of guns.



IMO our access to guns has not changed.

The guns have changed; they are now mass killing devices.

Jerry Baumchen



No, I really disagree with that. When I was in high school there were a couple of times friends or I talked about using a handgun but had no idea where to get one. I can't honestly say how things would have turned out if we had, but we couldn't lay hands on one and we sure as hell couldn't afford to buy one either legally or hot. Now I have several friends and a couple of brothers who have them just laying around the house and if I wanted one I could steal it in less than an hour. They'd be pissed when they found out but if I was going on a spree I wouldn't care. I wonder how many handguns the average teen stumbles across when searching the old man's room for porn these days. Well, ok, ignoring the fact that they probably just use the computer for that, but you know what I mean.

For me, while growing up it was trivially easy to access guns, but they were single-shot or small magazine hunting rifles, mostly. It would have been nearly impossible to find an AR-15, or really anything that would make a good offensive weapon. Many of the guns that are readily available today have been optimized for killing people.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Bob,

Quote

Sorry



Nothing to apologize for.

Quote

I read that as handguns for some reason.



If I never mis-read something, I would not be reading at all.

We all do it,

Jerry Baumchen

PS) In the summer of '54, I was 13 & had a paper route. With my first month's earnings, I went up the street & bought a single-shot 22 Remington bolt action rifle. Cost me $5 and the drug store owner never blinked as he sold it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You mean that might bear on this problem?



yes OBVIOUSLY, however what actually effects this problem is highly politicized, so who determines what bears an effect on the problem? some issues as i mentioned cant even be discussed in a society where feelings trump facts. As is obvious from most responses. People get but hurt real quick here.

Quote

"More kids are on doctor prescribed drugs then ever . . .Lack of fathers . . .demonizing of masculinity . . . no support for young men any where. . . No play time no freedom for kids. . . We cant even acknowledge facts"

All of those things have been blamed for centuries. During the Industrial Revolution authors lamented the loss of childhood; kids no longer had time to play, they went right into working in factories. During the 1960's editorials blamed the lack of strong fathers for the hippie culture of irresponsibility and unemployment - and the use of drugs that destroyed one's mind.



You mentioned that kids being on drugs has been problem for centuries???? really a hundred years ago kids were on all these drugs for depression ADHD....

This is one of the problems, the lack of honesty. you know better but you act the part and ignore things i assume you know....just to fit your view

Do you really not know the difference between weed the hipis smoked and the host of drugs prescribed to kids by doctors now??

this is what i mentioned in the original post which the responses once again proves.
WE as a people will not find a solution because we are not willing to look, and as your so called point shows apparently no one understand nuances anymore.

Abuse is different then discipline

The idea that kids in traditional families due much better is nothing new just doesn't fit the radical left agenda, so it cant be discussed

The fact that we have a lot less traditional families then we did in the past is not up for debate

The host of anti-depressant, anti anxiety, and psychotropic drugs is much different then the 60s where people smoked a plant, not to mention rarely was it normal to take your drugs on the hour every day forever.

Why do you pretend not to know the difference?


Quote

Why do you think those are mutually exclusive? You reduce bullying and abuse AND you teach kids how to deal with assholes.



no you don't teach kids how to deal with a problem by pretending it doesn't exist.
Unless you are under the assumption that you can somehow take this out of human nature. Which like many traits can be related to many other aspects of what makes us humans and can have horrific results. Not to mention i don't know how you would achieve this word with no mean people?

So again you approach the problem by measuring what has changed in the last 25 years in a none political manner you know the way science is supposed to be.


Not directed at you Bill:

if you lack the cognitive ability to understand what i am saying because of my bad grammar or spelling move along not interested in talking to you anyway! not everyone grew up speaking English i know your special because you did, and if a spelling and grammar is what keeps you from understanding an obvious point you have bigger problems cupcakes!
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record guns are designed to kill not to send you kiss's and hugs! that's why they shoot lead at high speed, its designed to kill and do the most damage.

NO KIDDING,

this might be different depending on where people grew up in the united states but access to guns has never been an issue when i was a kid here. We didn't have an ar 15 but we had guns with magazines that would allow you to shoot multiple shots.We didn't kill anyone!

The problem is the intent and the lack of value given to human life.
You have men who are constantly devalued, on media, in every commercial,the butt of every joke every criticism, specially white men and you wonder why these men under the influence of drugs (that warn of suicidal thoughts as a side effects among MANY others) might feel life is shit!! but yea its an inanimate objects fault

The lack of family, fathers being more absent then ever nothing to see here.

Hey how many shooters were on pharmaceuticals drugs?
How many from broken homes?
How many didn't have a father?

I am sure you have solved the problem, its the Ar 15 being evil.

Ridiculous!
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Soo again you approach the problem by measuring what has changed in the last 25 years in a none political manner you know the way science is supposed to be.



You can't claim scientific objectivity if you refuse to consider that easy access to highly capable guns is part of the problem.

And I love how you rant against those stupid emotional liberals in one of the most emotionally unbalanced posts in the thread.

Anyway, sure, broken homes are a problem. How do you propose we fix that?

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Various, for all previous time in America, women and minorities have been fair game for whatever preconceptions were thrown around. They didn't need to be evaluated as individuals, or taken seriously, simply because of who they were.
With the rise of the need to take people besides white men seriously in the real world (outside of social enclosures without white men), it's natural that there will be some overreaction. Unfortunate, but natural. Hopefully in the long run, a generation or two, more people will be able to listen to the content rather than the source. Unless, of course, it's politics...

As far as ADHD and other drugs, it's a pendulum too. 100 years ago over ok energetic kids had other outlets. Now there aren't as many. Social and life choices aren't as limited, but the huge amount of choice can be paralyzing, so they deal in other ways.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

WE as a people will not find a solution because we are not willing to look



We could look at what other countries have done about this? How do you "feel" about that?

Quote

no you don't teach kids how to deal with a problem by pretending it doesn't exist.



You're missing the part of this where we also need to teach children how to address their problems without being a bully. If you think kids would otherwise glide through life with no conflicts if bullying didn't exist you're kidding yourself.

Quote

So again you approach the problem by measuring what has changed in the last 25 years in a none political manner you know the way science is supposed to be.



In the last 25 years the gun lobby has successfully blocked CDC from studying gun deaths and has successfully turned any action against guns into identity politics regarding the 2nd Amendment elevating the possession of a fucking useless type of weapon (assault rifles) into a form of patriotism.

THIS SHIT DID NOT EXIST 25 YEARS AGO WHEN REPUBLICAN LEADERS (LIKE REAGAN) AGREED THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR CIVILIAN POSSESSION OF ASSAULT RIFLES.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You mentioned that kids being on drugs has been problem for centuries???? really a
>hundred years ago kids were on all these drugs for depression ADHD....

Yep. Drugs were different and diagnoses were different, but the effort to push them on kids was the same. Cocaine in Coca-Cola, a drink marketed at kids. Heroin as a child's cough medicine, which continued until the 1920's. Morphine for colicky and teething babies. Barbituates (Nembutal) for "little patients" who "balk at scary examinations." Opium for babies - "Atkinson and Barker’s Royal Infants’ Preservative" provided "relief for teething pain, bowel problems, flatulence and convulsions." Methampetamine (Norodin) for depressed teens. It was “useful in dispelling the shadows of mild mental depression” - they claimed it had “relatively few side effects.”

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

>Do you really not know the difference between weed the hipis smoked and the host of
>drugs prescribed to kids by doctors now??

Do you really think Ritalin is worse than cocaine, morphine, heroin and methamphetamine?

>The host of anti-depressant, anti anxiety, and psychotropic drugs is much different
>then the 60s where people smoked a plant, not to mention rarely was it normal to take
>your drugs on the hour every day forever.

Not really. I am not talking about recreational drugs. I am talking about anti-depressant, anti anxiety, and psychotropic drugs that people took every day, often under advice of a physician (or equivalent medical authority.)

Want to talk about the 1960's? OK. Ever heard of Quaaludes? They were a sleep aid/anti anxiety drug introduced in 1962. By 1970 it was the #6 selling sedative in the country. Which means people were taking it every day forever.

>The idea that kids in traditional families due much better is nothing new just doesn't
>fit the radical left agenda, so it cant be discussed

Sure we can discuss it. It's wrong. From Quartz:
=======================================
The science is clear: Children raised by same-sex parents are at no disadvantage

Katherine Ellen Foley

June 27, 2015

The debate over gay marriage—addressed this week by the US Supreme Court but by no means settled—frequently turns to concerns about the emotional well-being of children raised by same-sex parents. But science tells us the fears are overblown.

In January, researchers from the Columbia Law School examined 76 studies published after 1985 and found that only four of them concluded that children raised by gay couples faced additional adversity as a result of having same-sex parents. To be considered, each of the studies had to meet established guidelines that accounted for credibility and relevance.

More recently, researchers from the University of Colorado Denver and the University of Oregon used the tool Web of Science to examine the ways in which scientific papers analyzed children of same-sex parents over time, and how each paper cited others to back its analysis. They found that over time, more and more papers cited other research that highlighted that there’s “no differences” in the outcomes for children based solely on whether they were raised by same-sex, heterosexual, or single parents.

“I found overwhelming evidence that scientists agree that there is not a negative impact to children of same-sex couples,” says Jimi Adams, a sociologist at the University of Colorado at Denver and co-author of the paper.
=========================

>no you don't teach kids how to deal with a problem by pretending it doesn't exist

Agreed. Fortunately no one does that.

>People get but hurt real quick here.

It sure sounds like you got butt-hurt real quick when someone disagreed with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guns seem to be one of the few remaining successful industries in the US. What would the hit to Massachusetts be if we did ban AR-15? And the list goes on, and usually not to places you'd expect. Take a look at these articles then see if the lack of action against guns seems like a mystery.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/fully-loaded-ten-biggest-gun-manufacturers-america/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/do-you-own-part-of-a-gun-company/

edit: I forgot to do the thing to make those urls so I tried doing it now. I hope it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Church

Guns seem to be one of the few remaining successful industries in the US. What would the hit to Massachusetts be if we did ban AR-15? And the list goes on, and usually not to places you'd expect. Take a look at these articles then see if the lack of action against guns seems like a mystery.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/fully-loaded-ten-biggest-gun-manufacturers-america/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/do-you-own-part-of-a-gun-company/

edit: I forgot to do the thing to make those urls so I tried doing it now. I hope it works.



(Sarcasm) Well, according to some the knife and crossbow industries will go through the roof.

(Not sarcasm) Can't stand Mother Jones.

(Serious Reply) Yeah, we'll see a loss in a sector for a specific product but we're not exactly held hostage over the issue. Great economy, great sales elsewhere and AR makers have already flooded the market so it's not worth as much anymore. They should be happy for a spike in sales surrounding any threat/restriction.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJL

***Guns seem to be one of the few remaining successful industries in the US. What would the hit to Massachusetts be if we did ban AR-15? And the list goes on, and usually not to places you'd expect. Take a look at these articles then see if the lack of action against guns seems like a mystery.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/fully-loaded-ten-biggest-gun-manufacturers-america/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/do-you-own-part-of-a-gun-company/

edit: I forgot to do the thing to make those urls so I tried doing it now. I hope it works.



(Sarcasm) Well, according to some the knife and crossbow industries will go through the roof.

(Not sarcasm) Can't stand Mother Jones.

(Serious Reply) Yeah, we'll see a loss in a sector for a specific product but we're not exactly held hostage over the issue. Great economy, great sales elsewhere and AR makers have already flooded the market so it's not worth as much anymore. They should be happy for a spike in sales surrounding any threat/restriction.

My point is that there may be more to the delays and reluctance to do anything about gun violence than just the standard nobody getting around to it or the NRA. If people want to do something about there being so many guns it's important to know why there are so many.
As usual, money. Find out which politicians represent constituents who make their living producing guns and confront them about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Bob,

Quote

Find out which politicians represent constituents who make their living producing guns and confront them about it.



I disagree. IMO it is not 'who make their living producing guns.'

'Find out which politicians represent constituents who salivate whenever they see a gun.'

IMO it has nothing to do with protecting oneself; how many gun owners ( %-age wise ) have ever used a gun to actually protect themselves? It is an emotional thingy; they get all horny everytime they see a gun.

I'm Mech Engr & a gun fascinates me from the construction & function of it. But, that is about it.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi Bob,

Quote

Find out which politicians represent constituents who make their living producing guns and confront them about it.



I disagree. IMO it is not 'who make their living producing guns.'

'Find out which politicians represent constituents who salivate whenever they see a gun.'

IMO it has nothing to do with protecting oneself; how many gun owners ( %-age wise ) have ever used a gun to actually protect themselves? It is an emotional thingy; they get all horny everytime they see a gun.

I'm Mech Engr & a gun fascinates me from the construction & function of it. But, that is about it.

Jerry Baumchen



You don't think an exec from a place that makes guns has as much influence over their politicians than they guy who buys them? Either way, so far the gun makers have been ignored. That can't help. And the fact that they can't be sued can't help either. I can't remember ever seeing that making the headlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Church

[And the fact that they can't be sued can't help either. I can't remember ever seeing that making the headlines.



Well, then you weren't paying attention.

It was pretty big news when it all happened.

The anti-gun crowd decided that they were going to sue the gunmakers out of existence.
So they filed a lot of lawsuits.

NONE of them made it very far, but the gunmakers had to defend each and every one of them.

When it was pointed out that the suits had virtually no legal standing, were going nowhere and had no chance of winning, the anti-gun folks basically said "we don't care, we are going to bankrupt them this way."

And it's not blanket protection. The parents of the kids from Sandy Hook are suing Bushmaster/Remington.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should a car manufactured be able to be sued for the negligent use by somebody else's of their product. When the product worked a hundred percent as intended?


How about a breeder of pit bulls? Who sells their puppies to someone who raises these puppies. Then these puppies while in the possession of someone else kill somebody. Should the breeder of those dogs be able to be sued?

Can a skydiver sue a parachute manufacturer for a properly working parachute?

The very idea that gun manufacturers should be able to be sued because of the way somebody else uses their product is lunacy Beyond any common sense. I can't even believe it's part of the conversation!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The very idea that gun manufacturers should be able to be sued because of the way
>somebody else uses their product is lunacy Beyond any common sense.

I know! It's like holding an immigrant child responsible for what their parents did. And no one would ever do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Should a car manufactured be able to be sued for the negligent use by somebody else's of their product. When the product worked a hundred percent as intended?



I think there should be different standards for a product primarily designed to kill efficiently and a product designed to transport people and product efficiently.

Driving a truck into a crowd is not the intended use or purpose of a truck. Should a truck be in an accident and doesn't offer the expected safety standards, then indeed lawsuits follow. Generally resulting in safer design and improved technology to lower the risk of deadly consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Church

***Hi Bob,

Quote

Find out which politicians represent constituents who make their living producing guns and confront them about it.



I disagree. IMO it is not 'who make their living producing guns.'

'Find out which politicians represent constituents who salivate whenever they see a gun.'

IMO it has nothing to do with protecting oneself; how many gun owners ( %-age wise ) have ever used a gun to actually protect themselves? It is an emotional thingy; they get all horny everytime they see a gun.

I'm Mech Engr & a gun fascinates me from the construction & function of it. But, that is about it.

Jerry Baumchen



You don't think an exec from a place that makes guns has as much influence over their politicians than they guy who buys them? Either way, so far the gun makers have been ignored. That can't help. And the fact that they can't be sued can't help either. I can't remember ever seeing that making the headlines.

The people I personally know who have been in politics are very candid about the fact that campaign finance runs their life. You have to put it this way, they may be good people and have a message and they may want to do what's best for the US but you can't do all of that if you're not in office and you're not in office without big money donors. Now we know that the gun lobby doesn't hold a candle to the dollars flowing through pharma but they sure as hell can roll out votes. With that bang for the buck politicians are more than happy to give them the stage and speak on their behalf.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen



IMO it has nothing to do with protecting oneself; how many gun owners ( %-age wise ) have ever used a gun to actually protect themselves? It is an emotional thingy; they get all horny every time they see a gun.

I'm Mech Engr & a gun fascinates me from the construction & function of it. But, that is about it.

Jerry Baumchen


I'm an active-duty Marine with multiple expert qualifications on both of my T/O weapons. Former competition shooter. I had several firearms in the house growing up. I'm also only 5'4", and if you can't tell by my screen name, a woman. I've lived in some less-than-savory places -- or had to transit to/from work through them -- on and off for several decades.

I've never owned my own firearm, have no desire to procure one, and cannot imagine a situation where I would think I need one of my own. (Not including deployment to a place/mission where I would be issued one for that specific purpose, of course).

I might start carrying a taser as I approach AARP eligibility, but otherwise, I have plenty of other ways to both avoid and deal with threatening situations.

I watched a focus group recently on a news program. One man said he reconsidered (former NRA advocate) and determined no civilian "NEEDS" an assault rifle. A woman in the group replied, "That's not the point! It's my RIGHT to have it if I want one!" :S

Except for the competition shooters (sport), hunters (for food/hobby -- hopefully also for food), or collectors, I still don't get why people in general are so attached to their ability to have firearms.
See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This document was written in 2013, signed by 1,100 current or retired Green Berets, sent to the President and Congress, and published in various media outlets. I am a member of this group which is now over 5000 strong. I am also on the list of signees. The list includes Special Forces members from Major Generals and Special Forces Command Sergeants Majors down to the lowest ranking "Green Beret." NOTHING has changed in light of recent events and our sentiments on the matter stand. A list of possible solutions are at the end of the letter.

"Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
29 Jan 2013

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle - it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” - it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre's aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?
What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).
Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes. “We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story”: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.“. Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “… comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ….”

“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: "…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”
So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “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”.

2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.

3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.

4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful "Eddie the Eagle" program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be "sold" as entertainment to our children.

6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume Tort liability for that decision.

7. We believe that Border States should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that Border States will be far more competent at this mission.

8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Except for the competition shooters (sport), hunters (for food/hobby -- hopefully also for
>food), or collectors, I still don't get why people in general are so attached to their ability to
> have firearms.

Fear. A lot of organizations out there have learned to use fear to motivate behavior. The NRA in particular knows how to use fear (the fear of bodily harm, the fear of harm to one's family, the fear of someone "snatching" their property, the fear of government overreach) to sell guns. And it's working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0