What is wrong with people?

[egreir]

Im not saying they need to be allowed to have it. They just need to be responsible enough not to kill other people just for the sake of exorcising it. Saying people who get the permit will care enough is just assumption on your part. What about billy badass who just wants to be cool and carry a gun around? Im not saying ALL people are the billy badass, Im just saying I dont want to risk billy badass being on the bus next to me and forget to check his safety and he shoots me in the foot. The guy who accidentally killed his kid, Im sure he cared, but an oversight on his part ended in tragedy.

Again don't make me out to be against 2nd-A because I'm not. I'm against irresponsible people exorcising their right just because they can.

[Imoutgoodbye]

My state is an open carry state. This means anyone 21 and over who is not a felon can walk around with a handgun strapped to their waist in a holster. I encountered two idiots who did not need to be carrying, they just wanted to because they thought it was cool.

They then found out that having that sidearm in the vehicle is against the law because it would require a CCW. They also found out that any business (which is everyone in this town except McDonalds) has a zero tolerance weapon policy. I think they wore those guns for about a week and then sold them back to the store.

['tarako]

'Man guys. Guns are bad. Ok? And the best way to clean up all these random shootings? Make guns illegal. Then no one could have them. Oh! and we should make cocaine and heroin illegal too. Yeah. This will work guys, I know it.

[Twinblades713]

It's about pot. Don't make it legal, make it mandatory. No more shootins. :0

[egreir]

'Man guys. Guns are bad. Ok? And the best way to clean up all these random shootings? Make guns illegal. Then no one could have them. Oh! and we should make cocaine and heroin illegal too. Yeah. This will work guys' date=' I know it.[/quote']

That problem with this is thinking that people will actually follow the law and not have guns

Law abiding citizens won't. Criminals will. Sounds like where we are right now

..wait, I think my sarcasm radar has malfunctioned lol

[egreir]

I also want to point out that nowhere in the process to get a C/C permit does it teach a person how to effectively control themselves and their weapon in a life or death situation.

It's one thing to say let's all go get guns because it's our right but it's a totally different thing to think that everyone can handle themselves with a mad gunman is loose and is firing live rounds at your and children.

There's a line between the right to holster a firearm and the responsibility you take on when you do that. I do not believe one should exist without the other. Responsible people, ones who check the safety, ones who check the chamber so their weapon doesn't discharge and kill their own son, those are the people that are fit to bear arms.

Teachers are not trained killers. They are not trained marksman or hostage negotiators or close combat tacticians.

What they SHOULD have is armed security personnel in the schools.

A madman goes loose in the hallway and all of a sudden 20 teachers are firing at the guy and people are dying in the crossfire.

It just doesn't fly with me...you cannot predict how the everyday citizen will react in a kill or be killed situation. It's no simulation at that point. It's not a target moving on a mechanism with a paper gun in it's hand at 30ft away.

[Pali]

This is regulation creating the problem in the first place. More regulation is not the answer. 'We' don't need to guarantee any training. People who care enough about their personal safety to get a conceal carry permit in the first place' date=' are also going to care enough about their personal safety to know how to use it.[/quote']

So, you're okay with concealed carry permits being required, a form of regulation, or you're not? I'm confused here, because if your preference would be that anyone should be able to have a gun, the second half of this paragraph falls apart - I agree that people who are willing to go through the legal process are more likely to get at least a measure of training, though you seem to treat this as a far more absolute generalization than I do, but without that regulation that requires real effort to legally carry the argument is void.

Now, there ar two things that I think are missing from this discussion so far. The first is an acknowledgment that ALL laws restrict freedoms, so to single any law out for that reason is, I think, unfair. The question is not whether a proposed law limits freedoms or not, but whether the overall societal benefit to restricting that freedom is worth the cost. Safer roads are worth the loss of freedom to drive drunk or as fast as you want. So the question here is not whether restricting guns is limiting a freedom or not - the question is whether it is worth doing despite that cost.

The second thing is that while many people focus on the individual circumstances of each event, I prefer to ask a broader question: why do we have a society that produces these tragedies at a higher rate than those found in other developed countries (assuming my info is right and we do), and what can we do as a society to lower their prevalence? This is a question of far more than gun laws, relating to our mental health systems, our educational systems, unemployment rates, etc.

So long as you support the existence of govt. in any form, you accept the notion that we as a society can agree to limit personal freedoms where necessary for the common good - because that is the purpose of govt. We already agree that it's okay to limit freedoms - the disagreement is simply which ones and why.

[Celerity]

Pretty simple to me. Constitution says we are allowed to carry weapons. It doesn't say we must carry weapons or that we may only carry some weapons or may carry only with training or licensure. It says we may carry weapons.

If you want to regulate it, fine. Amend the constitution.

[egreir]

So' date=' you're okay with concealed carry permits being required, a form of regulation, or you're not? .[/quote']

That was kinda what I was saying. You don't want the feds to control your guns....but you want to regulate the responsibility of licensing and regulating the thing you just said you don't want them regulating?

All for anyone owning a gun...as long as they are trained to a very high standard.

It's not about saying someone should tell you what when and where to do something that is your right. This is right that lets you hold a lethal weapon in your hand. It is NOT a right that should be taken lightly. Like Pali said, to me it's not so much about the individual basis. I know many people here are responsible firearm owners. But that does not mean the idiot down the road is. Or the teacher who scares easy is. Or the teacher who suffered a traumatic loss in her family yesterday and is on the edge of a breakdown is.

They have the right to own guns...but are they responsible and able enough to do so appropriately?

[Celerity]

They have the right to own guns...but are they responsible and able enough to do so appropriately?

The constitution doesn't make such considerations. It isn't: you have the freedom to speak if you do so appropriately or you have the freedom of religion if you do so appropriately or the freedom to vote if you do so appropriately.

You have those freedoms until you commit actions which infringe on the rights of others. That means you are allowed to have a gun even if you "shouldn't have one" and it can't be taken away preemptively based on somebody's judgment of you.

I never understood the debate on things like this. The document is very clear...there isn't any interpretation or opinion involved.

[Imoutgoodbye]

The constitution doesn't make such considerations. It isn't: you have the freedom to speak if you do so appropriately or you have the freedom of religion if you do so appropriately or the freedom to vote if you do so appropriately.

You have those freedoms until you commit actions which infringe on the rights of others. That means you are allowed to have a gun even if you "shouldn't have one" and it can't be taken away preemptively based on somebody's judgment of you.

I never understood the debate on things like this. The document is very clear...there isn't any interpretation or opinion involved.

It's either:

A) A government conspiracy to create government funded jobs (lawyers, politicians, and judges) or

An issue of social rights where time has moved well past when a group of old white men wrote some words on paper.

[egreir]

It isn't about the document. I'm not debating what is written on a piece of paper. I'm debating the laws that are written based off that document, not the document itself, about how we govern our country and protect our citizens.

Moreover, to the point you were trying to make, the term "regulated militia" means "disciplined" or "trained". So again, I ask you, all these people who you say should have guns, are they a part of the regulated militia, or are they free spirits who just want a glock to show off to their friends?

[Celerity]

"..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Very, very clear. Any laws that go against that also don't need much opinion or interpretation, they are simply unconstitutional, despite whatever good moral reasons they may have.

Valek: "B) An issue of social rights where time has moved well past when a group of old white men wrote some words on paper."

That is why you go through the process of amendment. If it is truly out-dated as you claim, it should be easy to pass such changes. The document didn't have a 'time expiration' or 'after this date, it may be freely interpreted' or 'this document only applies in the context in which it was written'.

You can't just 'move beyond' the constitution and pass laws because you judge the constitution to be out of touch. That would eliminate the entire purpose of a constitution (which sadly, has already largely been done).

It also isn't a religious or philosophical text that may be interpreted freely. It is a binding legal document..and the only check we have on the government.

[-red-]

First, this is a terrible thing. I don't condone capital punishment, but any scum sucking piece of **** who hurts a kid deserves a few dozen years in a russian goulash before they let him die, and I'll be the one holding the ball-peen hammer. Totally mean it, makes me sick.

Now for guns; as a teacher myself the safety of the kids is my first priority. However, I see bringing a gun to school as more of a potential threat than a boon. The chances of your particular school getting hit by one of these soulless psycho *******s is pretty damn low - I'd have to do the research, but I'm fairly certain allowing teachers and other staff to carry guns would increase the dangers of going to school through accidental shootings.

You're right, inscribed, in that usually the law-abiding member of society whose gone through the process to obtain their gun and permit won't start randomly firing it off. It's usually the children and/or friends of a gun-owner who get their hands on it and then go blasting. Now take a group of children with under-formed prefrontal-cortexes (the part of the brain that assesses risk and consequence) and place them in an environment where teachers are walking around with the same cool toys action heroes wield on TV. You're gunna have a bad time.

Now I'm not saying this without concern myself. In fact just yesterday a man walked in to an elementary school here in china and stabbed 22 kids. A few years back in my town there was a string of stabbings, some in a goddamn KINDERGARTEN. I teach all ranges, and I'll tell you I was sorely tempted to find the nastiest weapon I could and carry it with me, but two things stopped me - one; the kids. Firstly as impressionable young minds, if they see me walking around with a weapon, the second most important person to a child behind their family, who knows what sort of affect that's going to have on them, and as I mentioned earlier it's dangerous to have a weapon around kids who haven't begun to understand the idea of consequences.

And two: The schools had taken care of this themselves. Security was ramped up ten-fold. Each guard (and we're talking young twenty-something fellas, not burger munching 300 pound drop-outs) had an attack dog and a goddamn two foot long metal stick with spikes on it to beat the ever living **** out of anyone dumb enough to try something.

I think this is closer to an acceptable solution for us. Instead of allowing every teacher and cafeteria mashed potato lady to carry a weapon, hire more specialized, respectable and goddamn competent guards who patrol the school and treat it like the house for young minds that it is.

Inscribed;

You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to be able to exercise basic rights

Let me preface by saying I agree with the concept of spirit of the right to carry weapons, but people today do not get weapons for those purposes. This creates a problem, because we've gone from 'protecting ourselves from overbearing government and outside invaders' to 'protecting ourselves from other psychos with guns.' People who buy guns unanimously claim that they buy it for protection. But protection from who? Other people with guns, naturally. And now that everyone's got guns, Imma get an AK, because that'll protect me better (and this isn't BS, I know people who stockpile stupid weapons like this, like we're stuck in a terrible re-enactment of Red Dawn). So to curb this national arms-race we have to put laws and rules in to place because, frankly, people need them to function properly in groups.

As humans in a large group we enter in to a social contract, wherein we accept the right of dominating forces to lead us and curtail some of those basic rights for the security and help from the community as a whole. And it needs to be this way, because people are people. Look at any situation of chaos (I would provide examples, but I have to get ready for work) and you'll see that we become irrational, violent, and easily lead by mob mentality. Laws prevent this and create a framework for our naturally confrontational species to live in harmony. So, point being, hoops are good. They're there for our protection, even if they are exceptionally frustrating.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Hey, there's my social contract back-up! Are you sure I can't have a gun, though?

[Pali]

Pretty simple to me. Constitution says we are allowed to carry weapons. It doesn't say we must carry weapons or that we may only carry some weapons or may carry only with training or licensure. It says we may carry weapons.

If you want to regulate it, fine. Amend the constitution.

Sounds like a plan. (or would if our political system wasn't so screwed up)

In seriousness, my purpose wasn't to argue whether we should or shouldn't regulate guns - personally, I think the murder rate has less to do with gun prevalence than other societal factors, though limiting the flow and number of weapons may be one way to help deal with the problem. My purpose was really just to point out what in my experience are common flaws or oversights in discussions of gun control.

[egreir]

It's like using textbooks from 200 years ago just because that's what was written. Who cares what we know now or what we have realized or how we have grown as a country, it doesn't matter. This is what was written and that's all you get.

[Celerity]

More accurate to saying it is like signing a indefinite contract 200 years ago and still being bound to it. If you wrote a contract that said somebody was to pay your family in 200 years, you'd expect them to pay. If they didn't, you could rightfully sue for breach of contract.

Textbooks have to do with learning and knowledge. The constitution is about neither of those. Very strange comparison there...

Like I've said twice now, there is a provision for changing times in the constitution...it is called the amendment process. And guess what..if you think that it is too difficult or slow..you can always amend the amendment process!

[egreir]

You follow a textbook, you follow a constitution...I saw the parallel there I guess? A textbook teaches you something, the constitution teaches you how to run this country. idk

I agree, amend it. That's what we've been debating. You're the only one trying to say people can't read We all know what it says...we're debating what we believe the amendment, if you will, should be.

[Pali]

To be fair, Celerity, you are glossing over the "well-regulated militia" part that's caused so much confusion in interpretation over the years.

[Celerity]

We can talk about a militia, but this conversation is about keeping/bearing arms, right? That is the other part of the amendment...

[egreir]

You must be well regulated to keep and bear those arms, that's my argument all along. There is some responsibility there, not just a free-for-all.

[Pali]

Frankly, when discussing how we think things should be changed to get where we think we should be, I find referencing the Constitution at all to be a waste of time. I don't care to argue about what the law is as much as I do what it should be. If we're discussing things in more practical than ideal terms, then I think telling people to try to change the Constitution (with, intended or not, a bit of a put-up-or-shut-up connotation) is to sidestep a worthwhile discussion, as well as to ignore that in our current political climate I'm not sure an amendment acknowledging the planet as mostly round would be passable.

[egreir]

As far as the Constitution (when talking about looking at it black and white) has to be taken in the context of which is was written because that is the only context that existed when it was written. They didn't know what would happen 300 years from then, obviously. You have to read it and say okay, what were they saying? What was the well regulated militia they were giving these rights to? Does it still exist? Is it the same thing? You say it is not open for interpretation, but it is. It has to be. What "arms" can we bear? Today's arms? They didn't know what today's arms were going to be so how could they say yes or no to it? We have to interpret what arms are since they did not define it. Or, as you suggest, we should take it black and white. They said we can bear arms, which is weaponry, so I should be allowed to carry a bazooka wherever I go. No? Oh, well how did you interpret it? A 9mm? That was the arms of 1992. Can I bear a photon torpedo gun 20 years from now?

The whole idea of a well regulated militia does not even exist, so if you want to impose 2nd amendment rights you have to make certain allowances. In 1903 all 17-45 males were the militia and you were going to supplement the regular army if it came down to it.

Do we have a militia now? I suppose you could make a case for it. Is it well regulated? No. Guess that means none of you without well regulated means to carry and bear arms should be allowed to own one. Sounds fair to me.

But that's not what we are arguing, we understand that certain allowances have to be made to fit it to the current context in which it is governing. How we fit it...now, that is the question. Call it an amendment if you want, or just call it common sense.

I say we just get rid of the whole damn thing and make a new one. Just like back in the day, we'll all meet in Philly and get some **** squared away. Hell, we may even let you be the Prez Celerity

[Akoz]

I agree. But since we can't be certain what arming all those people will do, is it worth the risk of even more death?

That's where safety comes into play. It -MIGHT- make it better, or it -MIGHT- make it worse. The possibility of making something WORSE has more weight than not being able to guarantee it will make it better.

And how many deaths have been reported because someone who was defending himself or others against a gun totting psychopathy "accidently" shot a innocent bystander have their been?

On top of that, banning guns would not stop criminals from getting guns if they wanted one. Would just make the gun marker stronger.