I recently read an interesting article in the UCSD newspaper regarding gun control. Overall it was a pretty ridiculous article. It sited very few facts, and said things like,
"What is more terrifying than a school shooter? Not one, but an entire lecture hall of armed and potentially deadly students. However, many groups nationwide have responded to recent school shooting by advocating a stronger presence of concealed weapons on campus." (I found this argument fallacious on many levels; I'm not sure where to begin.) It then went on about how is doesn't solve the problem, and we need more mental help available on campus to fix things. I agree mental help is important to lower potential risk, and frequency, but it of course wouldn't deal with the issue that campus shootings will happen regardless of the availability of a psychologist.
It did point out that on Utah and most Colorado campuses, concealed weapons are legal for students to carry. I thought it would be interesting to discuss the pros and cons of this approach. I have heard it argued that less gun control could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, if the pilot, or even the passengers would have had guns on them, then the likelihood of the attack working, or even attempted in the fist place, would have gone down drastically.
I think that allowing guns on college campuses would have a similar effect. The kinds of people that go on shooting rampages at school are cowards. Just like a rapist's mentality, they find a position that they have an advantage; their victims are helpless and can't fight back. Then they can take their revenge on society, and go out with a bang. They get to be the one in control, that everyone recognizes and respects for a few minutes, and then kill themselves, so as not to have to deal with the consequences. Personally, I think that if the kind of person that does a school shooting, knew that there were others armed around them, they would never have the courage to act.
I don’t know if it would be best to have everyone be allowed guns on campus though. There, of course is already a license required to carry a concealed weapon, and I think it might me appropriate to restrict that right from people with a history of metal instability.
According to the article there are 10 other states with legislation similar to Utah and Colorado pending. Interested to know others thoughts on this issue...
26 comments:
I personally am very pro gun control, I know, not very surprising. Although I'm too lazy (and at work) to look up actual data at the moment. I have always been impressed with nations such as England, France and Australia who have very strict laws on this and have much less violence than we do here in the U.S.
Australia specifically had a tragic Columbine like school shooting and responded with much stricter laws on guns and have seen a pretty big decrease in violent crimes of that type.
Ryan, having lived in France, has a really difficult time understanding why American's can't see that gun control works in other countries and that we should probably follow suit.
We need to remember that there are crazy people going on shooting rampages in every country. Some countries like Switzerland have very little gun control and very little violence as well. I don't think that gun control and violence are directly corelated. There are also societies that aren't as violent as yours but still have all the violent video games and movies that we do so I don't really know what makes a people in one country more likley to shoot each other. I think that if there was a ban on guns school shooting like Columbine would decrease because it would be harder for these nuts to get their hands on weapons, but not go away entirley.
For good and bad America has a gun culture. I personally don't own a gun but I respect peoples right to own one. In most cases good hard working Americans collect guns because they just like them or want to go hunting. Who are we to say that they can't have guns becuase there are a few screw balls out there, even if it does make things just a tiny bit safer for the rest of us (debatable). I don't think a slightly safer society is worth less personal freedom. As Patrik Henry said "Give me libery or give me death".
At every school that I have gone to from grade school to San Diego State there have been free, confindential, unlimited access to mental health profesionals. The problem with these school shooters is not that they don't have access to help or that no one has tried to help them: it's that they are so intersted in making themselves the victim that they don't want to take advantage of others help to better their own lives. That means that to really decrease school shootings these phycos need to be spotted and people (not just the government) needs to do everything they can to help them return to reality. Personaly, I have tried to help out a potentialy dangerous phycopathic individual before and it was no easy task, especially since it was a service and not something that I wanted to do. He was always saying and doing things that I found repulsive so I thought of hanging out with him as a duty, not my prefered way of spending my time. So how much can you expect all of us to try to help these people out? Especialy since we already have our own lives, families, school, taxes, jobs, friends to worry about. One thing I can say in every case these school shooters families have let the shooter and the rest of society down, the first thing everyone needs to do is worry about their own family. The sad thing is that if someone really wants to take a gun to school and kill a buch of people they can.
In conclusion, there will always be crazy people doing crazy things on a statistically very small basis. I don't think it's worth throwing away personal liberites and getting more government control to try to stop them, in the end we can't entirley anyways.
For me, the question on Gun control on the streets and gun control on the campus are somewhat different issues. I think it's debatable if more gun control on the streets would or would not reduce violence. Comparing to other countries, there is a vast amount of other variables we would need to consider. For example, I know England and Australia also have very strict immigration laws. You basically can't get citizenship unless you have direct family links, and even then it is hard. Being that as it is, I don't know how much of the minority vs majority issues they have, and the daily gang wars like they have in Watts, which accounts for a great deal of the American violence statistics.
All that aside, Paul is right, we will never have tighter gun laws anyway, just due to the fact of our culture being so much different. Firstly, the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, a right created to protect people from it's government. A change in that, we would need to amend the constitution. -Not likely-
Secondly, hunting is a very popular American sport. A sport which places like Japan, and England's terrain is not conducive to.
I also do not own a gun right now, but I am planning to own a gun at some point to be able to defend my family and house if that need presents itself. I also like going shooting.
Guns on college campuses is a more interesting question though. So on a campus you have people that are affluent and educated, and would carry a gun for the purpose of self defense. Gun crimes of passion or gang rivalry would be extremely few and far between. Let me ask any Utah college attender out there (since it is legal to carry concealed weapons), on a given day in a given lecture hall, how many students would you expect are carrying a concealed weapon? If the answer to that question is very many, then that seems to me as a reasonable incentive for an insane individual to seek another way to make himself the victim. And if there was such a case, people would be able to defend themselves and limit the number of casualties.
On another note, that doesn't have much to do with gun control, the really scary thing is, the more advanced a society becomes, the more damage crazy people doing crazy things on a statistically very small basis can do. Certain philosophers have talked about technological limits a society can have before is destroys itself. (If a big war doesn't do so first.)
England and Australia don't actually have really strict immigration laws, you can seek asylum and get citizenship that way. They also don't do much to integrate their very large Muslim minorities, leading to very strong cultural divides(Londonistan).
I'm not usually a fan of messing with the constitution, but I do think that specific law is very outdated and uneccesary for our times.
Also, my whole beef with the "I want to own a gun so my family is safe" argument is, that wouldn't your family be safer if just less people had guns in the first place? If someone could show me some stats on the amount of times owning a gun actually protected someones family during a robbery and they were positive, and outweighed the amount of times someone's family was harmed by a robber who shouldn't have had a gun in the first place, maybe I could be convinced.
I personally detest guns and violence in all forms. Ryan and I both agree that we will never own a gun.
Perhaps it was a poor example to allude to tight immigration laws meaning lower crime rates, because it is true that the entire world has racial controversies, and a poor, uneducated class where violence seems to be the biggest problem. Regarding immigration, I'm sure there are loop holes (like asylum), but generally the immigration laws in the US are easy compared to many other wealthy nations. I was trying to point out that there are many other factors to America's violence besides the gun control issue.
The stat you are looking for is likely impossible to produce either way. The point is that crimes are less likely to occur if the criminal knows that they will have greater opposition. Already laws are in place to prevent people with criminal record from getting a gun, and yet they do. There are plenty of laws in place to prevent people from getting drugs, and yet they do. Therefore, personally I feel less safe if less people have guns. That means the few that do will have unrestrained power, and a decisive advantage over the many that don't.
It's true that many shouldn't own a gun. Owning a gun requires a certain amount of training and responsibility. If improperly used, or mis-treated, horrible accidents can happen.
That being said, I don't see how having a tool to defend yourself from intruders would make you any less safe. I know someone that even just cocking a gun when there was a burglar on the property sent the thief running... and needless to say, never returned. (he was breaking into their car)
I too detest violence in all forms. Fortunately, I think humanity agrees on that one for the most part. Owning a gun I think would prevent violence to my family and all who I could protect with it. Similarly, I'm not conviced that allowing weapons on campuses wouldn't reduce the violence there as well.
Hyrum, I miss debating with you in person! Its more fun that way! However, I doubt that Ryan and Tiffany miss us debating, lol.
If you notice I didn't say anything in my original comment about gun's making us safer. I have heard arguments on both sides that bend the statistics in their favor. It is fine if someone doesn't like guns but I think it's important to respect the fact that others do and not try to impose your will via the government when you can't prove that allowing people to own guns makes society significantly more dangerous.
Though I don't agree with a ban on guns like Canada (which also has great hunting) or India I do agree with gun control laws like no automatic weapons, restrictions on concealed weapons, waiting periods, and background checks. Although if someone really wants a gun they can get around these laws they also make it harder for criminals and psychos to access guns.
As for allowing gun access on planes making us safer: I can imagine a James Bond scenario where a terrorist tries to take control of a plane with his gun and the slick under cover gun owner takes him out, saving the day. Unfortunately in real life on a plane a gun battle is the last thing that you would want. Although a college classroom is very different I think the same logic applies. Also, if someone is crazy enough to randomly shoot strangers I don't think they would worry too much about getting into a gun battle. As far as someone gunning them down before they could do any real harm; unlikely because even if people could conceal weapons at school very few would. The fact that cops can arrest someone just for concealing a gun or having a certain type of gun gives the law a huge advantage because they can arrest a psycho before he actually does some harm instead of letting some lunatic with a dangerous weapon go merrily on his way because he's not breaking any laws. Police often suspect someone of suspicious behavior and confront that individual before a crime is actually committed.
Rachel, lol. I agree, debating in person is more fun. I mentioned your comment to Tiffany, and she got a kick out of it, but agreed that yes, she did not miss it, though she misses you guys a ton. It's funny that you mention that though, because I actually had this debate with Tiffany and Heidi the other night. They seem to fall somewhere in between our opinions.
Looking at any select list of countries to prove or disprove the efficacy of gun control measures is really anecdotal. After all, look at our neighbor to the south, Mexico, guns are outright illegal there (like England?) and they have far more crime.
Personally, I don't think I will ever in my life own a gun. However you can't deny that the constitution declares that the right to bear arms and have a militia are essential are "necessary to the security of a free state". It also clearly says that this right is not to be infringed. That is exactly what gun control measures do, infringe.
"Amendment II
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."
So if gun control is against the second amendment would you argue that it is against the constitution to limit automatic weapons?
Keep in mind Sparrow, by that same logic, it is against the constitution to put control on bazookas, tanks, and even nuclear weapons.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Some of the original intent of the constitution, though I think is outdated. When the founders wrote this, they were afraid of a tyrannical central government exercising military power over states and people. The idea of the constitution was to give individual states the vast majority of the power, and have a small federal government to regulate commerce between them, and just to do the necessary things that a country must be unified on. That being the case, they wanted states to be able to defend themselves, and individuals as well.
I say it is outdated, but I mean only for this moment of relative peace and prosperity. The day could easily come that people or states may have to defend themselves because the federal government is not able to, or even, they may have to defend themselves from the government itself. This was the case in the civil war, I might add. I'm not saying they were right, but the South found it necessary to defend their own states from what they saw as a tyrannical federal government.
It makes sense to me to not infringe on state militias from having automatic weapons, and modern machines of war. But it does make since to me to regulate individuals from having a tool that could cause so much damage to others. Guns in general though, I think is a basic right, to be able to defend ones self, if the need arises. The founders realized that, and I believe it is still very relevant today.
One exception to that, which would be interesting to discuss is whether it would be correct to deny the right to bear arms to those that are diagnosed mentally unstable, and potentially dangerous.
Sparrow, as a matter of fact I do believe that limits on automatic weapons is against the second amendment. IMO, a very strict interpretation of the second amendment would allow citizens to have bazookas and tanks. It is quite clear that the founding fathers were talking about defending yourself from your government. You can't do that even with just automatic weapons.
It is certainly debatable whether or not we should need to defend ourselves against our government. However, I think that governments in general are becoming very aggressive about trampling over basic freedoms. Look at how many cameras the British government has, or that they are planning to fingerprint all domestic passengers on domestic flights in the U.K. Look at the wire tapping of the Bush Administration. Or try flying in the U.S. if your name (or someone else with the same name) happens to get on the "no fly" list.
If you think about it, the only reason we don't look at the people behind the Boston Tea Party as terrorists is because of who wrote our history. If the red coats had won the revolution you can guarantee that we'd look at the founding fathers different. They certainly believed in being able to take arms against your government.
As a side note, I am personally sick and tired of everything European countries do being regarded as enlightened. The last time they were "enlightened" was the dark ages. How were the crusades?
Americans are not the same as Europeans, and measures that "work" in certain European countries won't necessarily have the same effect here.
Just look at socialized medicine. People tout how it works in Europe but they always ignore the absolutely insane (by American standards) income tax rates working people pay. That's how they pay for the healthcare. I don't think most Americans would stand for that kind of taxation however.
Looking at everything in isolation isn't realistic.
Thought this news clip was fitting.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_new_iraqi_law
Paul I'm glad to see that you are using America's finest news source the Onion to back up your arguments. It is a good point you bring up; if the original intent of the second amendment was to protect us against the possibility of a tyrannical government then accordingly any weapons the military has should be fair game for us. Can you imagine a government rebellion where we were armed with hunting riffles and semi-automatics, the rebels would not put up much of a fight. I support the right to bear arms from personal protection standpoint, but that was hardly the intent of the second amendment. Interestingly the US government pays more in health care per capita then England, France, or Canada (see my post about it for the statistics) so Europeans don't have higher taxes because of their socialized medicine.
One more question Paul, what is a "no fly list"?
Let me propose two things about the U.S. spending more on health care than pretty much everyone else. First, have you ever thought that perhaps a lot of that is due to the lifestyle of the "average" American (fat, solitary, greasy food, etc)? Second, can anyone show that we'll be below the other G8 countries in health care spending if we socialize it?
Maybe I'm particularly sensitive to this because I currently reside in Indiana (top 5 for obesity and smoking), but I don't want to have to pay for everyone else's bad lifestyle.
Check out this link. I don't know if you realize how little tax most people pay. The bottom 50% only pays 3% of the total tax burden, and the top 10% pays 68% of the total tax burden. You can understand why I'm not in favor of paying for everyone else's health care. (hint: I'm in the top half).
About the no fly list check this wikipedia link. More or less, if your name is on the list you can't board a plane in the U.S.
The facts speak for themselves the UK government spends less per capita on medicine than the US government does, so if you really want to pay less taxes then you should advocate moving to their system.
Also, it can be argued that one reason Americans are so unhealthy is that we have a health care system that does not emphasize preventative treatment as much as other countries. Why, because the more unhealthy we are the more medicine private companies can sell us.
You still didn't address the whole "it would be lower with their system even in American" bit. It is a fact that the average American is more unhealthy that U.K. citizens. I guarantee that taxes will not be lower under socialized medicine in the U.S. I will concede that it is possible that overall spending on health care could be lower however.
Why is it that the countries people always cite for their socialized medicine are considerably smaller than the U.S.? England and France's population is only about 60M (about the same as California and New York combined), and Canada (30M) has less people than California by itself. It is a little questionable to suggest increased federal funding of health care based on these smaller isolated examples. Never mind that everyone I've met from Canada and England (granted all middle class and up) still pay for private medical insurance because the socialized coverage isn't any good.
Lastly, I just have to say, the fact that France does something almost makes me want to do the exact opposite. They are the least industrious of the G8 nations by far. They are never a good economic example.
Paul E's comments are always entertaining. Poor France. PS the medical debate is on the other blog.
Back to gun control, yes, the government does ban anyone from purchasing guns who is mentally ill or convicted of a felony. As far as concealed weapons on campus, I'd feel safe with that because law enforcement agencies make people jump through hoops to get them. Chances are no rampager had a concealed liscense, or would ever have the dicipline required to get one.
And it really is rediculous to say citizens should have tanks. The National Guard are actually militia units who answer to the governor before the president. I think that's a swell place to keep the big guns.
Good post Morgan; that is really interesting. I didn't know that the National Guard was under the governor’s command before the president's. I was waiting for the army guy to comment on this blog.
Ok, so back to gun control. They are the national guard, and the federal government has authority over them. It is a branch of the Army and Air Force. You should really read the part where congress is given the power to pass laws for "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." So if we disagreed with the federal government they would just pass laws requiring the national guard to "execute the Laws of the Union". The wikipedia article on the National Guard is a good place to start.
Is it really so crazy for citizens to have the rights to own tanks? After all we are just lending the government authority to officiate in our behalf. Certainly the founding fathers were assuming that we should be allowed to have every weapon (guns, mortars, cannons, etc) they had available in 1791. It would seem the point of the 2nd amendment would be that having military power should not be the exclusive right of the government. I really do think this debate comes down to whether people think the founding fathers were right with the 2nd amendment, not its interpretation.
The real problem with all these gun laws is that people who are going to use them to break the law don't care about the law in the first place. They still get them. Look at what is happening in Washington D.C. right now. Guns are illegal there, and they tons of violent crime. It literally is just that the law abiding citizens don't have choice to have weapons to defend themselves.
Good call on that National Guard issue. I wasn't aware, even though I'm in it! Look at this little jewel I found on Wikipedia:
"John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 H.R. 5122
Federal law was changed so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent.[3] In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard."
It's interesting that while the second amendment protects citizens' gun rights, article 1 section 10 denies states the authority to keep troops without consent of congress. It seems a bit of a paradox, the way I understand it.
That John Warner act is exactly the type of federal government encroachment that I fear. Our world is becoming so much like the book 1984 that it is scary.
About the Article 1 Section 10, it is a curious distinction. It seemed like they intentionally didn't want the states to be too powerful. Perhaps they only wanted non-governmental militia/citizens/etc to be able to bear arms (in addition to the federal government of course). It is interesting that the 2nd amendment phrases it "...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms..." (emphasis added).
Post a Comment