Guns in the Classroom

[ParanoiA]

If assault is a criminal act; then why are assault weapons legal?

 

In other words, why would one allow the sale/ownership of apparatus, who's sole function is to commit an act contrary to law?

You can't buy software specifically for hacking/identity theft from Wal-mart, nor can you buy a device specifically for breaking into cars, or stealing money from an ATM, or counterfeiting banknotes.

 

While it's true that a great number of things can be used as a weapon to commit assault (Knife, baseball bat, various hunting weapons) using such items to assault a person would be secondary to their primary function.

 

The right and ability of the people to defend their republic is one use of an assault weapon. Not sure they're entirely necessary, even for defending ourselves against the state through our "well regulated militia". The people cannot dominate our standing army, and thus any defense by the people would resemble tactics used in the revolutionary war, Afghanistan, Iraq...and etc. Merely having weapons - although I'm not an expert - would seem sufficient to that end, however remote its possibility.

[Moontanman]

School mass murder in 1927...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/mass-school-bombing-1927-puts-sandy-hook-context-185608674.html

 

Took me by surprise, i had no idea it had happened back then...

[waitforufo]

Where I live all schools have the sign below posted at every door. This is just an invitation to school gun mayhem. I wonder if such signs were posted at Sandy Hook?

If this sign were changed to say only properly trained school staff are permitted to carry firearms, that by itself would be a deterrent, even if no staff chose to become trained or carried firearms. Would it prevent all school gun violence? I doubt it, but why not save the lives that you can?

 

[rigney]

As much as I hate the prospect of something like this having to be initiated, it's probably the closest thing to sanity I've heard so far. As you say, regardless of teachers carrying concealed weapon or not, those signs may have been enough to deter psychologically even a deranged "potential nut case". Will it or can it possibly short circuit their want to achieve such mayhem? Who knows! But had these teachers been qualified to carry weapons and with signs like those mentioned hanging publicly, none of this may have happened.

Edited December 19, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Just signs would not have helped in this instance, the kid was familiar with the school, his mom had taught there, he was a local and would probably have known if the sign was fake...

Hey rigney, were you there during that school mass murder in 1927?

[rigney]

Just a gleam in my Dads eye, I suppose. Since I'm not aware of a 1927 mass school killing, run it by me. And the Lanza boy? As as I understand it, he hadn't been in that school for several years and his mother never taught there.

Edited December 19, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Just a gleam in my Dads eye, I guess. Since I'm not aware of it, run that 1927 mass school killing by me.

 

 

Post 27 in this thread rigney...

[rigney]

As sick and despicable as the article describes it, the comparison is moot and bears no similarity to the present carnage in Newtown.

[Moontanman]

As sick and despicable as the article describes it, the comparison is moot and bears no similarity to the present carnage in Newtown.

 

 

I'm not so sure about that rigney but I see no reason to argue the point. Monsters have always been with us...

[tomgwyther]

Most "assault weapons" are used by people having fun, rather than people assaulting people. Most weapons used to assault people are handguns.

 

 

They are fun to shoot I have to admit that.

 

The opinion that 'Guns are fun' still doesn't resolve, or address, the legal conflict I mentioned earlier.

a semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm has a sole primary purpose which is in conflict to the law. and in my opinion, a conflict to moral sanity.

 

I'm not against guns as a whole, on the contrary. I recently used a shot gun to shoot a few pheasant. I used a knife to butcher them and a fork with which to eat them. Each of these items could feasibly be used to inflict harm to another person; but that's not their primary purpose, and I don't use them for for purposes for which they weren't designed.

 

In the case of a fully automatic rifle, it's primary purpose is to kill/injure people, which it did - only too efficiently in this case.

It did exactly what it was designed to do.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It was not a fully-automatic rifle. Those are already heavily regulated and difficult to get.

 

The Second Amendment was written so a militia could defend itself. What about modern firearms is in conflict with that purpose?

[tomgwyther]

The report I read said he used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, a civilian version of the M-16. Plus two hand guns loaded with high capacity magazines.

Is there currently a need for a militia in the US?

 

I accept that my views may not be shared by US citizens. But I find the arguments against them; (guns are fun, big guns a harder to get, armed militias.) Etc, just a little weak.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, the Bushmaster is a semiautomatic version of the M-16. Fully automatic versions are not available to civilians except in limited cases involving weapons already in private hands before the ban.

 

Part of the point of the Second Amendment was that the founders did not want a large standing army, so self-defense would be necessary. But they also believed in the need for the people to be able to defend themselves should the government turn tyrannical.

 

I think it's silly to worry about assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Most gun violence is not in the form of massacres. Most gun violence is committed with handguns. Most gun violence is suicides, which obviously do not require a large magazine. Banning scary-sounding weapons won't stop any of this.

[iNow]

Just signs would not have helped in this instance, the kid was familiar with the school, his mom had taught there, he was a local and would probably have known if the sign was fake...

Specific to the bold part I added... That was one of many erroneous reports from that day. His mom did not teach there.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school.html

* An earlier version of this article, based on news reports at the time, indicated that Nancy Lanza had worked at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where Friday’s shooting occurred. On Saturday, the school superintendent said that there was no evidence Ms. Lanza had ever worked at the school.

[tomgwyther]

Most gun violence is not in the form of massacres. Most gun violence is committed with handguns.

 

Oh, that's OK then. As long as deaths aren't concentrated geographically too often.

Also, If the armed militia would care to use their handguns against their tyrannical government's standing army any time soon, I'd be very interested in the results.

It saddens me; the weakness of the arguments for handgun ownership - automatic or otherwise.

[akh]

What are the ramifications of arming teachers from a legal perspective? What if a teacher assumes a threat, kills someone and it is determined that it was not a threat? What if the teacher shoots a student who has a toy gun or anything that might look like a gun? What if a child gets shot by a teacher in crossfire? What if a teacher chooses not to or can't carry a firearm and is unable to do anything if another school shooting occurs? Will they be held liable?

 

Who is going to pay for the intense training required? Who is going to pay for the increased salary that should be demanded for taking on this additional responsibility? You think its hard to get good teachers now, just how do think this type of legislation will factor into the education system?

[john5746]

The report I read said he used a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, a civilian version of the M-16. Plus two hand guns loaded with high capacity magazines.

Is there currently a need for a militia in the US?

 

I accept that my views may not be shared by US citizens. But I find the arguments against them; (guns are fun, big guns a harder to get, armed militias.) Etc, just a little weak.

 

Well, this US citizen agrees with your views. And the arguments are not just a little weak, they are trash.

 

Yes, the Bushmaster is a semiautomatic version of the M-16. Fully automatic versions are not available to civilians except in limited cases involving weapons already in private hands before the ban. Part of the point of the Second Amendment was that the founders did not want a large standing army, so self-defense would be necessary. But they also believed in the need for the people to be able to defend themselves should the government turn tyrannical. I think it's silly to worry about assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Most gun violence is not in the form of massacres. Most gun violence is committed with handguns. Most gun violence is suicides, which obviously do not require a large magazine. Banning scary-sounding weapons won't stop any of this.

 

I understand the point that we are not addressing the bulk of the current problem, but it is not possible to ban handguns. It should be possible to ban assault rifles. Those that argue for them show their true colors at least. Silly is a strong word to use. Maybe its not enough, but I don't think its wrong

 

Attacking all or most gun owners would just stop everything in its tracks. We have to distinguish those that want to protect their property or persons from those that seek terrorism(wanting to fight against a democratic government with assault weapons is terrorism in my book) and those that want to be vigilantes(like the Trevor Martin case).

 

I think iNow posted in the other thread that handguns were the chief killer in the Sandy attack. I can't find enough details about that, but the Bushmaster is listed as the primary weapon of that attack. Would he have been able to make all that destruction - getting in the window, etc. with just the two handguns? And talking of handguns, they to are not all alike. We can limit clips and certain ammo for those as well.

 

So I do agree that we shouldn't just look at a label called assault, but taking into account the destruction capabilities of the weapon is important, I mean that's what separates a bow and arrow from a bomb. They both can kill, but the bomb can kill many more, much more quickly. Everything else is on that line. The ability to kill quickly, that's really what we are trying to limit in terms of gun types.

 

Suicides and accidental deaths are a different issue. Suicide by one's own gun, not sure anything can be done. Suicide or accidental death with someone else's gun is the fault of the gun owner. That's better remedied by requirements for gun locks and severe jail time, rather than banning certain gun types.

 

What are the ramifications of arming teachers from a legal perspective? What if a teacher assumes a threat, kills someone and it is determined that it was not a threat? What if the teacher shoots a student who has a toy gun or anything that might look like a gun? What if a child gets shot by a teacher in crossfire? What if a teacher chooses not to or can't carry a firearm and is unable to do anything if another school shooting occurs? Will they be held liable?

 

Who is going to pay for the intense training required? Who is going to pay for the increased salary that should be demanded for taking on this additional responsibility? You think its hard to get good teachers now, just how do think this type of legislation will factor into the education system?

 

Arming teachers is so obviously from a deluded mind. I can't respond further, I had a big rant on this and deleted it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by john5746

[ParanoiA]

 

Also, If the armed militia would care to use their handguns against their tyrannical government's standing army any time soon, I'd be very interested in the results.

It saddens me; the weakness of the arguments for handgun ownership - automatic or otherwise.

 

 

Remember the Afghanistan war we won with our standing army? Oh wait...

 

Ok, remember the Iraq war we won with our standing army? Oh wait...

 

Standing armies are really impressive with their might, yet they never seem to actually win against an armed insurgency. It always surprises me how people think the second amendment's suggestion of militias, and the idea of defending ourselves against a tyrannical democracy - which we are becoming - is supposed to look like one standing army against another. We have a lot of history of protracted occupational warfare to pick through and understand. There are no excuses here. An armed American public, and the advantage of militias, is absolutely a remedy for the people to defend their republic.

 

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So I do agree that we shouldn't just look at a label called assault, but taking into account the destruction capabilities of the weapon is important, I mean that's what separates a bow and arrow from a bomb. They both can kill, but the bomb can kill many more, much more quickly. Everything else is on that line. The ability to kill quickly, that's really what we are trying to limit in terms of gun types.

Why? Until about a decade ago, the most common weapon confiscated by police was a .38 Special revolver, possibly the weapon farthest down the list on "ability to kill quickly" apart from bolt-action rifles. How fast you can kill someone has no correlation with the frequency of a weapon's use in crime.

 

Incidentally, the same factors that make the AR-15 scary also make them one of the most popular civilian-owned weapons sold in the US. I'd guess that, proportionally, AR-15s are used less frequently for violence than shotguns or handguns.

 

District of Columbia v. Heller also poses a legal challenge to banning AR-15-style rifles, because it explicitly grants the Second Amendment right to weapons "in common use" for lawful purposes.

 

edit: I should point out that Connecticut has an assault weapons ban already, and the AR-15 used in the massacre was legal to own under it. That's the trouble with clearly defining what constitutes an assault weapon -- it's very easy to get around.

[john5746]

So what is your line of thinking? Do we ban guns based on usage in crimes? Size? Or don't ban at all.

 

I'm sure if we start selling grenade launchers, they wouldn't be used often for suicide or hunting accidents or to hold up a bank. But do you think it might be a problem?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Grenade launchers are legal for civilians to buy in the United States so long as they pay for a $200 federal tax stamp. So no, I don't think it might be a problem.

 

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_21/238534_37mm_and_40mm_Launcher_FAQ.html

[StringJunky]

 

. An armed American public, and the advantage of militias, is absolutely a remedy for the people to defend their republic.

 

This speaks volumes about the level of faith of the American people (if you're representative) in their political system...not much it would seem. In Western Europe, I think would be fair say that most people think this is an archaic idea and no longer relevant in a 21st century First World country.

Edited December 20, 2012 by StringJunky

[john5746]

Grenade launchers are legal for civilians to buy in the United States so long as they pay for a $200 federal tax stamp. So no, I don't think it might be a problem.

 

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_21/238534_37mm_and_40mm_Launcher_FAQ.html

 

OK, so how do we decide if any weapon is unsafe? Only after it has killed enough people?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

 

OK, so how do we decide if any weapon is unsafe? Only after it has killed enough people?

I'm not sure that's the question we want to answer. A weapon can be unsafe but hideously expensive and impractical to use, like a grenade launcher, and so it only ends up being used by people with too much money having some fun.

 

The question we want to answer is "How do we reduce gun violence?" I don't know what the answer is, but banning weapons that are rarely involved in gun violence doesn't seem to be a candidate. Perhaps guns used in crime tend to be inexpensive models that can be easily purchased; then we could institute an excise tax to make them more difficult to own. Perhaps we could have more effective background checks before allowing gun purchases. Perhaps we could disincentivize gun violence by making it easier to prosecute -- through some sort of ammunition registry or whatnot.

[zapatos]

The problem with gun control based on lethality, or magazine size, or description, is that it is all subjective and arbitrary. What is an unnecessary deadly weapon to one is a good target rifle to another.

 

I believe if the objective is to increase limits on gun control, the way to go about it is to simply implement what can be passed into law, regardless of what type of weapon that is being limited. If lawmakers will not accept a ban on, say, assault type weapons, then do not try to limit them and move on to something that is palatable to a majority.

 

This speaks volumes about the level of faith of the American people (if you're representative) in their political system...not much it would seem. In Western Europe, I think would be fair say that most people think this is an archaic idea and no longer relevant in a 21st century First World country.

While I feel it is unlikely that we will see the population at war with the government, I believe that the thought of an armed group of individuals does give government pause when considering a heavy handed use of power.

What are the ramifications of arming teachers from a legal perspective? What if a teacher assumes a threat, kills someone and it is determined that it was not a threat? What if the teacher shoots a student who has a toy gun or anything that might look like a gun? What if a child gets shot by a teacher in crossfire? What if a teacher chooses not to or can't carry a firearm and is unable to do anything if another school shooting occurs? Will they be held liable?

Who is going to pay for the intense training required? Who is going to pay for the increased salary that should be demanded for taking on this additional responsibility? You think its hard to get good teachers now, just how do think this type of legislation will factor into the education system?

As far as the legal ramifications, I imagine they would be similar to what would happen if a teacher responded with a cricket bat if similar damage was done.

 

It is unlikely that any teacher would be forced to carry a gun. Who in their right mind would force a gun on a teacher who is, say, afraid of it?