Arrianna

Now, I know what the laws are like where you are from but I would like to know how you think the Constitution is being misquoted.

I believe you just contradicted yourself. If it is that rare, and it happens in other countries, how is it a US problem?

That part is true, if someone is going to shot up a school they will do it. However, they may not have anything to lose but the students certainly have something to gain if their teacher can shot the perpetrater before they shoot the students instead of having to wait for the police and dealing with a potential hostage/rape situtation.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Barronmore

Chubz;

No one is giving teachers guns. The school board is not handing them out like candy. All the state legislature is saying is that if a teacher can qualify for a concealed weapons permit then they should be allowed to carry the gun on campus. That's it. They can already take it to the grocery store, the movies, church, about anywhere they want (assuming private property owners allow it)...just not on school property in that state. This law would allow them to also include schools in the long list of places they may take their concealed weapons. In no way is this law mandating that teachers be required to have guns in the classroom and it should not be portrayed as if it is.

You have had two shootings in Canada in 7 years. Your teachers dont' have guns. We have had no shootings in Utah for over 10. Ours do. I don't see how having a clean record for 20 years and then having two shootings in the space of 7 helps your claim.

Not only has Arrianna brought up a good point about possibly killing the attacker before anyone else is hurt/killed, but your forgetting the fact that if someone has already premeditated the act and is willing to break the law to do it, won't they just break the law to get the guns they need to commit the crime? It has nothing to do with gun avalibility. If you restrict guns all you do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and keep them in the hands of criminals who have no respect for the law anyway.

Now I know personally from my own research for my stats class that the violent crime rate does decrease in areas with legal gun ownership over those that don't. Where did I get my data? The FBI database. I compiled the data myself so I know what I'm talking about.

__________________

Chubz

Direct Quotation:

"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."

The only part of this text that people will repeat is "the right to bear arms," which they feel guarantees them the right to own guns. I have NEVER heard any pro-gun supporter actually use the entire quote. The problem being is that it applies to a specific period of time, which no longer exists.
America was trying to free and protect itself from Britain. During this time, colonies depended upon militias for protection, as there were no real standing armies. Since population density was not very high, specific areas would be deemed to have militias, which were composed of civilian adult males within a specific range. If an attack was about to occur, or if they needed to launch an attack, word was spread requiring all the males to meet up and get ready to defend/attack. Since the colonies did not have huge standing armies, they also did not have a huge weapons cache for which to provide to the men. As such, the militia men were responsible for their own guns. The guns weren't meant to be collectables or something to buy just for fun. This was a time when there were real threats of invasion, and the guns served a purpose.

However, now that countries do have standing armies, militias are no longer required, and are frankly looked down upon by the government as vigilanteism. Because of America's beginnings (revolution, then later the civil war) guns became engrained (which wasn't a bad thing, because in the beginning it was a necessity if the country was to survive). However, it's long past the time when militias have been needed, and policing and protection is handled by the police and the military. People now use "the right to bear arms," as simply meaning the right for personal ownership, which is not what it truly meant.

It's not a contradiction.......In terms of chances of being shot at school, they are pretty slim. Looking at all other causes of homicide, school shootings are fairly rare. However, out of the rare amounts of shootings, America holds a higher percentage than other countries.

I understand the argument, that it allows for quicker reaction time, hopefully saving lives. That part makes perfect sense. However, I don't see it as actually solving the problem of the shootings. It's trying to stop the event while it's happening, which is never the best method. Giving teachers guns is simply masking the problem.

I've been trying not to say this in my other posts, because I know it is a moot argument, but I think that guns should be banned. The fact that there IS a call for teachers to carry guns shows that there is a bigger problem at play. If a tunnel is about to collapse, you don't hand out umbrellas, you fix the tunnel. Giving teachers guns is like handing out umbrellas, and waiting for the problem to happen.

*EDIT* Barronmore, your post snuck in while I was writing this one, so I'm including this as an edit.

As for the shootings in 7 years, those are in two seperate provinces (alberta and montreal). So if we bring in your argument in that statement, you're factoring the two shootings in seperate provinces, in all of Canada, therefore your remark about Utah has no bearing either, because we'd then be looking at all of the United States, which has had several shootings in only a few weeks.

Yes, they will find illegal means. The reason why it would be so hard to suddenly ban guns is because they are so prolific. But it doesn't mean that it can't be done, or that you might as well continue making guns.

Now do those statistics apply only to the United States (since it's FBI stats), or do they include international rates?

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Zdenek

The Americans (USA) display a typical blindness to one's own moral faults. As a primer, I recommend studying well-behaved European states and deduce statistical output of what keeps violence down.

As for the original question, both answers, yes and no, are wrong. It's obvious.

__________________

Dejiko | Koboshi | Puchiko | Misha

Arrianna

Very good, however you are making two very common mistakes.

First, the right to bear arms is found in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written specifically to adress the rights of its citizens. Second there is the phrase "the people" which is only found in the Constitution when addressing personal rights. Thirdly that particular article was orginally written in with the right of freedom of religion and speech, also personal rights. And lastly there is the testimony of the writter himself who had some very derogatory things to say about governments who don't trust their own citizens to arm themselves. According to him (and others) the purpose of an armed populace is that it not only prevents invasion but is a disuassion from a corrupt government becoming tyranical.

Perfectly understandable considering that the right to bear arms was part of the rights of Englishman at the time but the crown had denied it to specific prodestant groups they didn't like and were doing the same in the America's. You are correct that it has to do with the foundation of the country but in this case that foundation is in the rights of Englishmen that they were fighting for in the first place. Rather ironic under the circumstances I think.


It also has what population in comparison with the others? Really, if you are going to make statements like that you need to take statistical percentages into account.

For example: Canada has a populace of 17,340,702. The US has a populace of 298,444,215(Its 300,000,000 now, just saw it on the news)*. That is a difference in population of approximatly 1/17th.

Now you have said there has been 2 school shootings in Canada in 7 years. In that same 7 years in the US there has been lets see... 23. So if you are correct that it's about percentages then the US has a lower percentage then Canada since based on populace it breaks down to lets see.... if I did the math right 67.6% of the number of shootings Canada has. I would love to do it based on number of schools but I am having trouble finding those numbers for Canada. Either way I think I have made my point.

Another point. These shootings in the US occured in Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, California, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New York, Minnesota, Tennessee, Wisconsin. Others have happened in Virginia, Oregon, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alaska, and Washington. That is 23 out of 50 states. Nearly 50%. Yet 2 out of the 3 states that allow teachers to carry concealed weapons, Utah and New Hampshire, have not had any.

Another matter of interest is that previous to '95 most states allowed teachers to carry concealed weapons. School shootings in the US began in '96. Coincidence? Possibly not considering that there was one in Scotland that same year. But since the one in Scotland was thought to be a copycat crime of the one in Washington State perhaps it isn't a coincidence.

*Edit by miroku

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

rock on

Another thing is if teacher where holding weapons and the stuendt know about it. And are doing the shooting the will belive and haveing to kill the people with the weapons to stay alive.

The teacher also even if knowing how to use it and have been for many years. They still could make a mistake and shot a kid that is fight another stundet or teacher. Than there are the teacher that truly hate a person and could (out of hate or revange) shot ther person making the problme.

Also we have cops in most of the schools and the ones with no cops are the stats that doesnt allow it. the cops are there to make sure these things dont happen

__________________


92% of teens moved to rap. I am one of the 8% rebelions

Chubz

Yes, you're right.....it does address the right of citizens, because it is under personal responsibility. When they drew this up they put everything under federal, state, and personal rights. Since this wasn't a standing army, it fell under personal rights to carry guns, because the government couldn't be expected to supply everyone with weapons.

hehe yeah, you're right about him being suspicious of government tyranny, which is why it's stated "necessary to the security of a free State" and not "necessary to prevent an invasion." That's written specifically in those terms to represent invasion or corruption.

But, the "right of the people" cannot be taken as a seperate meaning, as it applies solely to "a well regulated militia." In both instances (militia, and preventing gov't tyranny), the guns had a purpose which no longer is needed today. The writing applies only to the time period in which it was written, and is dated.

The English did have the right to carry guns, but they did not continue that tradition, and have since moved away from practices of the 18th and 19th centuries. Since the Americans were simply Englishmen unhappy with the system, they used their British heritage to say "okay, what was Britain doing wrong?" and took what they knew and transformed it into what they wanted. But with gun laws, they still hinge on dated documents which really aren't needed anymore.

Yes, if you immediately equal out population to that of America, you're numbers are correct. However, Canadian population is not 300 mill, our percentage is 1.15%, to US 7.6%, and should be taken at it's natural value. Of course, numbers would rise assumably with population increase, but to equal out the two countries is more like fixing numbers than actual representation. I understand your point though, which is quite valid.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Arrianna

Actually that doesn't hold for one reason, the militia clause has been upheld in every case to come up before the Supreme Court including in the last century. Any weapon that can reasonably be used in defense should the country be invaded has been found legal under that amendment up to and including a sawed off shotgun. You are not talking about a non-standing army. You are talking about a citizen militia that can be "deputized" at any time. Even today if an officer of the law requires someone's assistance they are required by law to assist them. If that means bringing a gun they bring a gun. Different countries, different laws. I have a hard time imagining that you have similar deputization laws in Canada.

Now lets look closer at the entire statement that you quoted earlier. "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." Notice where the comma is? Think about that for a minute. The first part describes the thought behind the second. Which only sets the standards for what kind of arms they have the right to bear. It does not create a standard under when they can bear arms or it would have said so. Such as "As long as a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say that though, does it.

That is why most people don't bother to quote it and those who oppose the second can't stop talking about it in an attempt to distract from the real issue. The issue you seem to have missed. The phrase "the people" is only used in two other instances in the Constitution. In every case the phrase is used to exclusively describe individual rights such as religion and free speech. That means that the Constitution places the right to bear arms in the same context as the right to religion and free speech neither of which is conditional upon the State.

I didn't say it was 300 mill, that is the US. Canada's population is 17,340,702.

__________________

l Stone Hold l Now We're Cooking! l Thanks to Kaos for the awesome sig!

Chubz

But you're now bringing in 21st century ideaology into the statement itself, you have to look at this from when this was written. This wasn't written for deputization, and I doubt that any officials would actually deputize Joe average during the period in which it was written. The militia is a call to arms, not deputization. Pretty much, it's conscription. If you're an adult male, and they need soldiers, you have to grab your gun and go. If you don't go, you'll probably be tried for treason. It establishes that you are American, and as such, you will defend America. The deployment of troops was still handled by officer elites, the militias job was to show up and prepare for orders.

As for the apostraphe, it's an apostraphe and not a period. Yes, it describes what types of "arms" they are allowed to bear, but back then, your options were limited to pretty much a musket. There were no sawed off shot guns, or assault rifles, so they didn't write "the right to own a glock, or uzi" because they did not exist. And even though it established that guns are allowed, the first part of the sentence establishes for what purpose. As you said, it does not include a "when," because the men had to be ready at a moments notice. Since it's under personal rights, it says you can have a gun anytime, but the first part of the sentence dictates to what purpose, and it's the purpose that is the catch of the sentence.

I said in my last post that it was placed under personal onus for owning guns. I'm not debating that. The country had just been created, but there was no real ability yet for the government to enforce anything. Everything was split into: Federal, State, and Personal rights. Gun ownership fell under personal rights, because the state couldn't personally arm each civilian.

Now, in relation to when it was written, public ownership of guns is not needed anymore. The protection of the state is done by the police and military. There is enough infrastructure now that public militias are not needed. Since this base is now covered, the ability to personally own guns is dated.

__________________

Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!

Arukih

well here in Europe no one is allow to have a gun, whtever the reasons are...I dont know but it helps everyone keeping away from guns, Well it doesnt mean that we dont have "cases" but like those, its rare!!

__________________

bloodhawk

well i know that at my school teachers are alowed to have tasers becuse of all the treats and what has been happing in other schools. so i think that tasers are ok but nothing more

__________________