Guns in the Classroom

[iNow]

 

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.

That's mostly because our leaders find the idea of using the more powerful weapons we have at our disposal morally repugnant. That doesn't mean the "standing army" is incapable of wiping out others with the push of a button. It means that the leaders in the government against which so many people speak with such vitriol and distrust are actually kind and decent humans who have a respect for life and people.

 

The reason standing armies often don't win is because they are never allowed to use all of the weapons they have readily at their disposal. It does not mean that handguns and hunting rifles and IEDs are enough to beat them, IMO.

 

If we ever got to a point where we had to defend ourselves against our own government, do you truly believe they couldn't use whatever weapons they needed to crush the uprising? Just look at Syria. Even they are not using every weapon at their disposal and they are devastating the people fighting against them with semi autos.

 

 

Edited per the below. Changed "wouldn't" to "couldn't."

Edited December 20, 2012 by iNow

[StringJunky]

That's mostly because our leaders find the idea of using the more powerful weapons we have at our disposal morally repugnant. That doesn't mean the "standing army" is incapable of wiping out others with the push of a button. It means that the leaders in the government against which so many people speak with such vitriol and distrust are actually kind and decent humans who have a respect for life and people.

 

The reason standing armies often don't win is because they are never allowed to use all of the weapons they have readily at their disposal. It does not mean that handguns and hunting rifles and IEDs are enough to beat them, IMO.

 

If we ever got to a point where we had to defend ourselves against our own government, do you truly believe they wouldn't use whatever weapons they needed to crush the uprising? Just look at Syria. Even they are not using every weapon at their disposal and they are devastating the people fighting against them with semi autos.

 

Good point iNow. In all its conflicts the US armed forces, including NATO, are trying to use just enough force to get the job done and try and minimise collateral damage, which is a very difficult exercise in practice.

[zapatos]

That's mostly because our leaders find the idea of using the more powerful weapons we have at our disposal morally repugnant. That doesn't mean the "standing army" is incapable of wiping out others with the push of a button. It means that the leaders in the government against which so many people speak with such vitriol and distrust are actually kind and decent humans who have a respect for life and people.

 

The reason standing armies often don't win is because they are never allowed to use all of the weapons they have readily at their disposal. It does not mean that handguns and hunting rifles and IEDs are enough to beat them, IMO.

 

If we ever got to a point where we had to defend ourselves against our own government, do you truly believe they wouldn't use whatever weapons they needed to crush the uprising? Just look at Syria. Even they are not using every weapon at their disposal and they are devastating the people fighting against them with semi autos.

Your first two paragraphs seem to be at odds with your last paragraph.

[iNow]

Yeah... It was an after thought not worded well. I meant to share that governments and standing armies can still suppress insurrection even without using those other much more powerful tools, so the argument fails on two levels IMO.

[StringJunky]

INow

 

If you'd used couldn't instead of wouldn't, it would have been consistent and in the spirit of the first two paragraphs.

 

 

If we ever got to a point where we had to defend ourselves against our own government, do you truly believe they couldn't use whatever weapons they needed to crush the uprising?

Edited December 20, 2012 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

Yeah... It was an after thought not worded well. I meant to share that governments and standing armies can still suppress insurrection even without using those other much more powerful tools, so the argument fails on two levels IMO.

I usually find myself on the side of people who want to limit firearms, but I must admit that lately I've come to see merit in some arguments of 2nd amendment supporters (not that we don't all support it at some level). As a first world nation that peacefully hands over power every four to eight year, and has not in recent history had a president ignore a Supreme Court ruling, I don't forsee a need for arms against the government. However, guns are a deterrent at many levels. For the local sheriff who tries to rule with impunity, I think that knowing the citizens are armed will tend to keep him honest.

[john5746]

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.

 

I agree that if we just concentrate on assault weapons, that would be a mistake. And that does seem to be the attention right now. A big part is the recent mass killings that involved them, but also I think it seems like an easy thing to do. But nothing seems to be easy in congress these days.

 

Yes, we need to dig deeper and determine effective solutions, but I think destructive potential and utility are important, not silly. We do have extra regulations for certain weapons, like machine guns. We can expand that to certain semi-automatic weapons. We can do this in addition to other ideas.

 

I think we need an amendment to the constitution that makes it clear that guns are a privilege, not a right. Guns are not to be used to fight government. But, that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

[iNow]

I think we need an amendment to the constitution that makes it clear that guns are a privilege, not a right. Guns are not to be used to fight government.

There's a fairly sizable portion of the population who disagree with you vehemently and passionately on both of these points.

[StringJunky]

There's a fairly sizable portion of the population who disagree with you vehemently and passionately on both of these points.

 

It is sad that the inhabitants of a country with a well-established democratic system should think that they feel need to maintain the option of lethal recourse against their governing body, who they chose. The US government is not some aloof, nepotistic and autocratic body, they are people like the voters who have been chosen to do a fixed term or two of leading them. The US armed forces is made up of their own...are they going to raise arms against them?! I can't get my head around this as a just cause for preserving the Second Amendment.

Edited December 21, 2012 by StringJunky

[tar]

 

It is sad that the inhabitants of a country with a well-established democratic system should think that they feel need to maintain the option of lethal recourse against their governing body, who they chose. The US government is not some aloof, nepotistic and autocratic body, they are people like the voters who have been chosen to do a fixed term or two of leading them. The US armed forces is made up of their own...are they going to raise arms against them?! I can't get my head around this as a just cause for preserving the Second Amendment.

String Junky,

 

I agree with you. It is us that composes the government, and the army. We have nothing to fear from us, as a society. We will automatically take care of internal threats that arise. Which brings the argument back to what level of firepower is required in the hands of private citizens, especially those that would be anti-social, anti-government, sociopathic, severely troubled or otherwise mentally incapacited.

 

My advice would be to limit weapons of war to our army, and limit automatic firearms to our police and law-enforcement personnel.

 

And if you own a semi-automatic weapon, which you cannot think of a good reason to have, for hunting, or sport shooting, or personal protection, or as defense against a wild animal or madman, don't wait for somebody to ask you, just destroy the damn thing. We don't need it in your hands, or need it around for some disturbed individual to turn against us.

 

Inow, of course Texans are excused from the plea.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 21, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

And if you own a semi-automatic weapon, which you cannot think of a good reason to have, for hunting, or sport shooting, or personal protection, or as defense against a wild animal or madman, don't wait for somebody to ask you, just destroy the damn thing.

 

What constitutes a good reason varies person to person. Their "good reason" is these rights are natural and unalienable, and that the constitution is to put limits on the rights of government, not limits on the rights of people. Their "good reason" is that despite saying all men are created equal under the law, we kept slaves for the first century of our country's existence. Their "good reason" is that we rounded up Japanese people and put them into internment camps in WWII, and their "good reason" is that we still lock people up indefinitely in places like Guantanamo and other secret prisons.

 

If you think folks are just going to destroy their weapons, I think you're being naive. Not only will they refuse to destroy them, they are out right now buying them in massive numbers for fear that they may one day be banned or made illegal and no longer available.

[john5746]

 

What constitutes a good reason varies person to person. Their "good reason" is these rights are natural and unalienable, and that the constitution is to put limits on the rights of government, not limits on the rights of people. Their "good reason" is that despite saying all men are created equal under the law, we kept slaves for the first century of our country's existence. Their "good reason" is that we rounded up Japanese people and put them into internment camps in WWII, and their "good reason" is that we still lock people up indefinitely in places like Guantanamo and other secret prisons.

 

If you think folks are just going to destroy their weapons, I think you're being naive. Not only will they refuse to destroy them, they are out right now buying them in massive numbers for fear that they may one day be banned or made illegal and no longer available.

 

Mostly white men though, cause that's how we roll. Yep, all those groups you mentioned may have had a good reason to pick up a gun and kill some people, of course they would have been slaughtered and good ole boys would have been helping their government do it. But elect a black man and oh shit, time to kill.

 

Yep, Ghandi was wrong. MLK was wrong. Bin Laden was right.

[zapatos]

 

Mostly white men though, cause that's how we roll. Yep, all those groups you mentioned may have had a good reason to pick up a gun and kill some people, of course they would have been slaughtered and good ole boys would have been helping their government do it. But elect a black man and oh shit, time to kill.

 

Yep, Ghandi was wrong. MLK was wrong. Bin Laden was right.

Can you elaborate a bit on what you are getting at please? It sounds like you are responding to a rather nuanced comment by yelling 'racism!'. I assume you are not but can't really tell what it is you do want to say.

[akh]

Its seems that the NRA has lifted its standard post, mass killing silence. In their best sad voice, the NRA has suggested that we should follow the most immediate and easy to implement solution. Which is of course to make armed school guards manditory. They get to sell more guns that way. Bunch of thinkers in that group.

[tar]

Inow,

 

Ok I am naive. But I am trying to separate various aspects of this debate, and look at them as critically as I can, from various perspectives. I personally feel safer with guns in the hands of my fellow citizens, than I would if I knew there were none allowed. And I do not think giving schools a good plan for security, including an armed trained guard, is a bad idea. Arming random teachers on the other hand is rather goofy. There is a middle ground available, where private citizens are trusted with weapons to protect themselves and the rest of us, from deadly threats, and overkill weapons be more carefully controlled.

 

In the same way that allowing tanks and warplanes, and gunships to be held by private citizens, there is a border line drawn that considers what powers we should have as private citizens and what we should have as government agents, and then again as what we should have as members of the military.

 

I will agree that firing an M-16 with a 30 round clip,in full auto, at a 25meter target, from the hip, is a rush.

And raking barrels on a ridge 1000yards away with an M-60 machine gun, with a tracer round every 7th, provides a similar rush. But I did those things once, in a controlled environment, training to use those things, while in the Army in the service of my country.

 

What concerns me, is this. I heard a person, that knew the family of last week's killer say that the mother had taken the son to the range to enhance his self esteem. In retrospect, I don't think suggesting to the son that his personal power and control might be found at the trigger end of a weapon, was a very good idea.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited December 21, 2012 by tar

[waitforufo]

Just out of curiosity I took a look a gun laws in Connecticut with respect to "assault weapons." These laws can be found at http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm. Looks like they are illegal to me.

 

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition.

Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony.

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony.

Sec. 53-202e. Relinquishment of assault weapon to law enforcement agency.

Sec. 53-202f. Transportation of assault weapon. Authorized actions of gun dealer.

Sec. 53-202g. Report of theft of assault weapon.

Sec. 53-202j. Commission of a class A, B or C felony with an assault weapon: Eight-year nonsuspendable sentence.

Sec. 53-202k. Commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm: Five-year nonsuspendable sentence.

Sec. 53-202o. Affirmative defense in prosecution for possession of specified assault weapon

 

From what I read in the news Nancy Lanza bought her Bushmaster AR15 in Connecticut. The Connecticut assault weapon law specifically calls out the Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol as prohibited, but my guess is that Nancy didn’t purchase either of these specific models. The law also defines an assault weapon as..

 

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:

 

i. a folding or telescopic stock;

 

ii. a pistol grip;

 

iii. a bayonet mount;

 

iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

 

v. a grenade launcher

 

I’m sure the weapon she purchased included a pistol grip, and I know Bushmaster makes models without the other 4 items. So by legal statute the rifle purchased by Nancy Lanza was likely not an assault weapon in Connecticut. By the way, the other 4 items on the assault rifle list would only reduce the accuracy of any rifle. Not that much accuracy is needed in a classroom setting. So the Connecticut assault weapon law may have made some people feel better, but all it really did was made semiautomatic rifles more deadly.

[tar]

Waitforufo,<br /><br />Interesting how the law is written. You have a semi-automatic weapon with a pistol grip, where the gas from the previous round loads the next from the clip, allowing you to fire off 30 rounds as quickly as you can squeeze the trigger, but its not an assault weapon. Add a flash suppressor or a bayonette mount and then its an assault weapon. Doesn't really make much sense to me to make such a distinction. Forgetting the grenade launcher for a moment, you can do some rather fancy assaulting if you are not concerned about muzzle flash or hand to hand combat.<br /><br />You could take an M-16, permanently disable auto mode, so you could not simply hold the trigger to empty a clip, file off the bayonet mount, and you would have, not an assault weapon?<br /><br />I guess that is basically what they have done, with the Bushmaster. If it fires the same tumbling .223 rounds I am familiar with, at the same high velocity, it is as deadly as a battlefield weapon. In the service, on the range, we kept it in semi-automatic and routinely "killed" man size targets, at 300 yards. The only reason I ever fired one in auto mode was a time I was in the last group at the range and we had to expend the extra ammunition.<br /><br />Point being that such a weapon does not belong in the hands of the public in peace time.<br /><br />They should change a few words in that law. Rearrange some of those ors and ands.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

[john5746]

Can you elaborate a bit on what you are getting at please? It sounds like you are responding to a rather nuanced comment by yelling 'racism!'. I assume you are not but can't really tell what it is you do want to say.

 

I guess my point is that minorities would be the ones with the most justified reason to kill their government. But for the most part, they didn't do that and I'm glad they didn't do that. Today, gun ownership is nearly twice as large for white males and I have a feeling its even more so for these terrorist, child melting models. Some of that is probably economics, but still.

 

Of course anti-government terrorism has been around since day one, but I think the increasing under-current is related to the backlash of the angry white man. And I'm using white as the power structure, not a race. Some that felt they were once in power and now are losing it are pissed. But they are not content with just the democratic method, especially if they continue to lose.

 

Of course, most of them are just shooting from their mouths and just want to have a neat toy. They would probably shit in their pants if they had to really fight.

[rigney]

john, your statements are rather ambiguous assumptions of various problems that has little or nothing to do with violence in our classrooms. While a moral tug between right and wrong in our brain continually determines how we deal with problems as we grow, this sanity or the lack of; sadly did not resonate with the young man. Don't know just where, but I've heard it said, and it says it all: There but for the grace of GOD go I.

Edited December 22, 2012 by rigney

[tar]

john5746,

 

I am pretty much a nonconfrontationalist. If there is a way to defuse a situation, or allow the situation to disperse, without causing harm or injury, I would prefer that course. Swallow my pride from time to time to accomplish this. I would probably shit in my pants if I had to fight. But if it was the only way out, or other people were relying on me to do it, I might just be able to pull that trigger. I think it very unfair of you to challenge people's manhood and intenstinal fortitude, without knowing the people that you are referring to.

 

As to people not wanting to lose personal power, name me someone that is in favor of losing personal power. I live in NJ, one of the biggest nanny states in the country. If one person gets hurt doing something, nobody is allowed to do that thing anymore. My personal rights and trust in my personal judgement are taken away left and right. It is not my macho pride that is being hurt, it is my self-esteem, the fact that everybody else, doesn't trust me, to use good judgment and do the right thing, without help from the state. I do not mind giving up some of my rights for others, because I know that 250 million people are giving up some of their rights for me. Personal responsibility is what I would like to see rule the day. Trust yourself to do the right thing, and trust everybody else to have the same judgement.

 

So when a large group of people feel that the state should not take away their weapons, I agree with them 100%, and do not visualize these people as deranged people unable to do the right thing. I see them as my family and friends and neighbors, that know exactly how to be toward others.

 

I do not own a weapon, thought about it, but did not want one around the house as my girls were growing up. Now, I don't want one, because the only value it would have is to shoot someone, or something, and in most situations I can envision, there might be a better way to handle the situation. And in those situations were a firearm might be just the ticket, perhaps a neighbor has a gun, or the police can come and control the situation. And if Helter Skelter arrives, I know some people with weapons, and I know where the local armoury is, to go to and enlist my services.

 

All this taken into account, I think it right and proper that guns be in the hands of those in the public that want them, for any reasonable purpose, and what is reasonable may be different in rural areas than in suburbs and then again different in cities. Local rules and laws should hold sway over federal regulations...except in the case of weapons of war. These should be behind armoury walls, under lock and key, until we need them, for training, or use. And certain other weapons only in the hands of certified professionals or public servants.

 

To guns in school. Reasonable in the hands of those that are qualified and certified, and wish to have them in their hands, and at the bequest of the local principle, school board and surrounding community. It need not be a one size fits all policy. It probably should not be a one size fits all policy, but we need to protect our hearts, that gather together every day in school. We need somebody there with the power to stop a threat, that would take the lives of our children or the child of a friend or relative. And we need to trust people with guns, inorder to have a "good guy" there, to protect us, and take control of the situation, so that actions like Adam Lanza's cannot be successful, and will not be copied.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 22, 2012 by tar

[tar]

And there is another thing we can do to stop Newtown copy cats. Heard about it today. Happened in PA. Boy A told Boy B he was going to shoot up the shool. Boy B told his parents. Parents told the police. Police went to Boy As house and found an AR-15 and two automatic pistols. Make sure your kids know that "telling on a friend" is the right thing to do, if the so-called-friend is planning to "shoot up the school".

[Joatmon]

Perhaps this isn't actually an answer to the thread. Also I haven't gone right through the thread, but make of these statistics what you will:-

 

USA Gun deaths per 100,000 of the population = 0.1 (2009)

GB ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, = 0.02 (2011)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Edited December 23, 2012 by Joatmon

[rigney]

And there is another thing we can do to stop Newtown copy cats. Heard about it today. Happened in PA. Boy A told Boy B he was going to shoot up the shool. Boy B told his parents. Parents told the police. Police went to Boy As house and found an AR-15 and two automatic pistols. Make sure your kids know that "telling on a friend" is the right thing to do, if the so-called-friend is planning to "shoot up the school".

Tar, this portion of your statement should give pause to anyone who thinks they are isolated from such an event. Bravado and B.S. are inherent to some degree in all of us. The courage and fortitude that female principal showed by rushing unarmed into harms way to protect those children, was bravery beyond my comprehension. Could I have done what she did? Only if I were armed, and even then; it would have been iffy.

 

Quote by Tar: I am pretty much a nonconfrontationalist. If there is a way to defuse a situation, or allow the situation to disperse, without causing harm or injury, I would prefer that course. Swallow my pride from time to time to accomplish this. I would probably shit in my pants if I had to fight. But if it was the only way out, or other people were relying on me to do it, I might just be able to pull that trigger. I think it very unfair of you to challenge people's manhood and intenstinal fortitude, without knowing the people that you are referring to.

 

 

Perhaps this isn't actually an answer to the thread. Also I haven't gone right through the thread, but make of these statistics what you will:-

 

USA Gun deaths per 100,000 of the population = 0.1 (2009)

GB ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, = 0.02 (2011)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

 

I don't know if this will help Joatmon, but it's a try.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_localities_in_England_by_population

Edited December 23, 2012 by rigney

[tar]

Rigney,

 

Had a thought, looking at the statistics you linked. Might not be directly linked to to the consideration of guns in school, but it was interesting to me that many of the countries that had the higher percentage of homicides by gun, were countries in and around central america, which might suggest a correlation with illegal drug traffic, and the associated violence.

 

Just for the heck of it, I wonder what the figures would show, if drug related incidents were subtracted from the numbers.

 

It might show, that the U.S. has a tremendous amount of guns in the hands of people(potentially good responsible people) who do not use them to murder.

 

And that we have a drug problem.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 23, 2012 by tar

[rigney]

Truth is, a need for the one is likely the means of countermanding the other. Sadly, you are probably right on both accounts.

Edited December 23, 2012 by rigney