Guns in schools

[HazelGod]

This is exactly why there is no reason for students to be legally armed in school. I don't care if they are 6 or 16.

Nobody here is suggesting they should, pretty lady!

Most, if not all, states require people to be 21 in order to legally purchase or possess handguns and handgun ammunition. Obviously, those under this age cannot apply for a CHL.

At issue is whether the teacher, who holds a state license to carry a concealed handgun, should be permitted to do so on school property.

 

[B_New End]

Are you completely insane!?! I'm guessing that you not only don't have children; but you have never taught in a public school in this country either.

I don't need to have taught in public schools, or have had kids, to know that over a hundred million children were raised in households with guns, and the number of accidents and shootings amongst children remains very low.

Just like I don't need to have taught in a public school, or have kids, to know it is ok to have a large, chlorinated swimming pool in school, or at Great America... or an oven, or a parking lot, or a road next to the school.

Fact is, there are almost as many guns in America as there are people, and yet, the number of guns used in accidental shootings, and school shootings, is very, very, very, very low.

I disagree. Heck, Vice President Cheyney doesn't know those rules and he's old as dirt. Do you seriously expect a child with ADD or ADHD to commit that to memory. Teachers have enough to do in the classroom thanks to NCLB w/o adding gun safety to the mix.

How do you think so many hundreds of millions of Americans have survived in the past centuries, with guns in the household? You are over emotionalizing and logicizing something very simple.

You can teach a kid not to stick tin foil in a light socket, and you can teach a kid to respect a gun.... end of story. It isn't rocket science, and it doesn't require someone with a PHD in child psychology to teach kids these things. Stop acting like it is some enormously complicated undertaking... it isn't. It's simple.... especially when you teach the kids how to fire a gun. Half the people who are anti-gun have never even fired one themselves.

It's just like telling little Billy not to stab his sister in the eye with a steak knife.... ADHD or not, he will understand.

 

[Principessa]

Nobody here is suggesting they should, pretty lady!

(giggle, blush, giggle, giggle)
OMG! HazelGod called me pretty :flirt:

 

[NCbear]

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that conservatives have more faith in the common man in any number of ways than do liberals.

Isn't that the strangest thing, Shelby? Though conservatives wish for less gun control (a phallic symbol), they're perfectly content with attempting to justify greater control of actual phalluses via laws mandating specific sexual positions (e.g., heterosexual and "missionary" only, in states like mine).

It's a mad, strange world.

NCbear (who may have agreed with Shelby on a few points in recent months -- oh, the Scarlett O'Horror)

 

[NCbear]

.

 

[Nrets]

This country. I love how we equate the freedom to have guns with freedom. The problem isn't the guns. And it isn't lack of guns. And it isn't even the pocket areas with dissillusioned kids. Although that is a manifestation of the real problem...which is that we are told how to be free and how to live our lives. In many cases people are at odds with that. Especially poor, young folks, whi haven't yet accepted society as it is. But in general anyone who has had several bad days in a row and has a disposition towards anger can snap and decide to use a gun to feel powerful. Especially when guns are EASILY available. This is reflected in the US where the entire country has an overall murder rate higher than most large foreign cities. Then you have an area in England with a higher murder rate than even DEtroit or DC...well I say, they do get their weapons somehow... and they must be some extremely dissatisfied youth to have such a high murder rate. I'm guessing Manchester is the most boring, no future type, industrial shit hole in England. My answer: don't make laws for or against guns, just make a society that is less oppressive so that people don't need to push others around with lethal weapons to feel strong.
Back in the day physical fights or ability to avoid physical fights used to be a skill that made people really aware of each other.
Its unfortunate that the OP feels a need to have a gun in school to protect herself. Well I suppose if the guy has a gun, then what is she going to do. Still, I stick by what I say...in a less oppressive world, less guns would be made, because there would be less unsatisfied people, and if this guy couoldn't be stopped with pepper spray, then the more aware people in the vicinity could surely take the guy down...without a gun.

 

[ClaireTalon]

I would vote against it, clearly. The fact about guns is that once one is there, it will surely be used.

It doesn't matter to me so much who carries the gun, as soon as it is in the classroom, all ingredients for disaster are there. Is it so impossible that a frustrated teacher will crack and run amok with it? Or he feels threatened by his students and puts some out? It might also be possible that he or she could be overpowered by more than one student, and then the gun is possibly in bad hands.

If you want more security, don't leave the gun in amateurs hands. I wouldn't mind if security personnel was wearing guns, trained professionals who work in pairs and could cover each other, but not one man or woman without experience against a group of others.

 

[davidjh7]

THis is an interesting topic, especially considering that there is an upcoming case in the supreme court, and the present justices more than likely are going to write an opinion that the second amendment should be interpreted as saying that ALL gun control is against the constitution. This could get very ugly very quickly....

 

[HazelGod]

The fact about guns is that once one is there, it will surely be used.

Specious nonsense, completely unsupported by the available facts:

Since the passage of [Texas'] Concealed Handgun Law [in 1996], the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18% drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004. And a 13% drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004.

In 2000, on the fifth anniversary of the Concealed Handgun Law, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report that indicated Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen.
According to the report, the more than 200,000 Texans licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person.

The report illustrated that Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. And they are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report, concluded:
“Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong,” Burnett said.

With 247,345 concealed handgun licenses active in Texas as of December 2005, the number of law-abiding licensees has had a positive effect on the crime rate.

Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report indicates the overall crime rate in Texas has continued to drop over the past 10 years. In 1997, DPS reported 5,478 crimes per 100,000 Texans, based on a population of 19,355,427 Texans. In 2004, with almost 3 million more Texans, the crime rate is 5,032 per 100,000.​

Similar statistics abound for other states: The FBI's UCR shows 59 handgun murders in Oregon in 1995...the 2005 report lists only 19, a 68% drop.

It doesn't matter to me so much who carries the gun, as soon as it is in the classroom, all ingredients for disaster are there. Is it so impossible that a frustrated teacher will crack and run amok with it? Or he feels threatened by his students and puts some out? It might also be possible that he or she could be overpowered by more than one student, and then the gun is possibly in bad hands.

Look up, Chicken Little...I assure you that the sky isn't actually falling.

 

[Ed69]

Sorry Hazel, it's a little asinine to even consider teaching kids that age about guns in any way, kids should not be bought up to consider guns in any way a normal part of life, as for teaching them respect for guns all they should be taught is if they see a gun to run for their lives.

I grew up with a rifle in my hands and a faithful hound dog at my side.We killed many cyotes and mountain lions protecting the cows and chickens that fed our family.I once had to kill a feril dog that went after my niece.Guns are every day life for me,defend your self or die!Seems to me you don't want a real man,one willing to kill for you.Many meals have been brought to our table through use of a gun and it is normal!This is real life not some rose colored city view of life.

 

[Osiris]

A large part of gun safety is learning the proper respect for the weapons. Such respect can be instilled into a person long before they reach the age where proper handling and control become considerations.

Sorry Hazel, it's a little asinine to even consider teaching kids that age about guns in any way, kids should not be bought up to consider guns in any way a normal part of life, as for teaching them respect for guns all they should be taught is if they see a gun to run for their lives.

I grew up with a rifle in my hands and a faithful hound dog at my side.We killed many cyotes and mountain lions protecting the cows and chickens that fed our family.I once had to kill a feril dog that went after my niece.Guns are every day life for me,defend your self or die!Seems to me you don't want a real man,one willing to kill for you.Many meals have been brought to our table through use of a gun and it is normal!This is real life not some rose colored city view of life.

This has always been kind of an arguement I've had with my wife over my kids. Like Ed, I learned about rifles and rifle safety when I was 7 at summer camp. I shot my first automatic revolver at 8 at same camp. We learned what guns were, how they should and shouldn't be handled, and most importantly, what they can do. As an adult with kids in the house, my guns are stored off the property to avoid any problems. So I am like Hazel and Ed although we were taught to bow hunt, we knew about guns well.

To SP's point there is a gross difference between what kids know and see at the age of 7 now then what we knew and saw at age 7 in the 70s. The media is a lot more violent in nature than it was then and some people expose kids to some seriously violent things either by ignorance or trusting in someone else. I was upset with a babysitter for letting our 4 year old watching one of our Ghost in the Shell DVDs. Her defense was "He said he wanted to watch a cartoon." I then realized, I really couldn't be mad at her because in her family, it was probably no big deal, but my wife hates when he is exposed tp weapons and the like. So now we find ourselves having those talks about do we get him training when he is old enough? So I see this arguement as sound too.

Ed is probably the truest point I've heard in a long time. It was survival. The guns he had were not for play, but for harvest. It is common for kid's growing up in farm or rural areas to learn how to hunt at an early age. It is how you survive. Again, Ed at an early age learned how to responsibly handle a fire arm, but also that it was a vital part of the chain of survival.

This is why this is such a hard thing to address. When and why should you address guns with your child and how should you tailor it? And if you are a parent and you let your kid visit friends houses, you also never know what they are being exposed to. Again, is your child armed with the knowledge to know and be safe? It's a sad statement of the times in which we live.

 

[canuck_pa]

I will never understand the obsession with guns. Why would the average, non-hunting person ever need a gun?

 

[2322]

I will never understand the obsession with guns. Why would the average, non-hunting person ever need a gun?

Take a look at our current state of government in the US and I can think of a few compelling reasons.

When my mom and uncle were young, high school students carried their rifles on the bus with them for gun club, a school-sponsored sport. It was a school sport and they competed with other schools. Nobody blew anybody else away.

Here everybody has guns. I was taught to respect guns and use them responsibly. I never had an urge to play with one. After her divorce my mom kept a 20 ga. shotgun. Worked great! You live on a farm you need a gun. Plink woodchucks, foxes, weasels, and coyotes, euthanising stock, hunting, and yes, home defense. They're just too useful not to have. My grandfather was an expert marksman and kept ten or twelve shotguns, rifles, and pistols. Nobody's fired them in anger or (fortunately) self defense.

We've had a spate of home invasion robberies lately. It appears the cops have caught them but before they were arrested I was glad to have a shotgun around and very happy my mom, who lives at the end of a long private drive, had hers as well. She knows how to use all sorts of guns as does everybody. It's not a big deal.

 

[frizzle]

A gun is not used for protection. It is used to kill people, that's it's only purpose.

You can use it for protection, but then you'd be a murderer. Have a fun time in prison.

 

[Osiris]

A gun is not used for protection. It is used to kill people, that's it's only purpose.

You can use it for protection, but then you'd be a murderer. Have a fun time in prison.

A very sound statement, but consider this:

If said person is seeking it because said stalker would kill her, how domyou weigh in on kill or be killed? I'm curious because I'm not sure which side I'd stand on. Like you say, murder is murder no matter what the circumstance or name put on it.

 

[braumeister]

A gun is not used for protection. It is used to kill people, that's it's only purpose.

You can use it for protection, but then you'd be a murderer. Have a fun time in prison.

I don't consider people who kill in self-defense to be murderers. Legally in many places they are not.

I've heard that the UK doesn't recognize the right to self defense anymore, I recall reading about a man who defended himself against a mugging using a sword cane, and he was charged with a crime as a result of that incident. Then there is also the Tony Martin case.

But every state in the US recognizes the right to self defense. Though in some jurisdictions, good luck! From what I understand though, everywhere in the US if you kill someone in self-defense, expect to spend at least one night in jail while the police investigate.

 

[braumeister]

I will never understand the obsession with guns. Why would the average, non-hunting person ever need a gun?

There's a lot of obsessions I don't understand. Why many women seem to be obsessed with shoes and have a lot. Why some people insist on wearing jerseys emblazoned with the name of their favorite athletes. But the mere act of owning a firearm, like the two examples I just gave, hurts no one and is no one else's business.

 

[Osiris]

I will never understand the obsession with guns. Why would the average, non-hunting person ever need a gun?

The illusion of protection. A feeling of power that is not real.

I don't consider people who kill in self-defense to be murderers. Legally in many places they are not.

I've heard that the UK doesn't recognize the right to self defense anymore, I recall reading about a man who defended himself against a mugging using a sword cane, and he was charged with a crime as a result of that incident. Then there is also the Tony Martin case.

But every state in the US recognizes the right to self defense. Though in some jurisdictions, good luck! From what I understand though, everywhere in the US if you kill someone in self-defense, expect to spend at least one night in jail while the police investigate.

Not familiar with Tony Martin. What's the story there? And you are right about the spending a night in jail. The term justifiable homicide has always kind of been a hazy one if you ask me. Way too objective for a jury I think.

 

[HazelGod]

A gun is not used for protection. It is used to kill people, that's it's only purpose.

You can use it for protection, but then you'd be a murderer. Have a fun time in prison.

Yes, that's their only purpose. That's why they're issued to law enforcement officers...to make muderers of them all.

It's too bad we didn't have access to your wisdom and insight on the sole purpose of guns sooner, as a whole lot of our social problems could have been completely eradicated (by remaining a British colony)!

Two words for you, genius: justifiable homicide.

Actually, two more: fucking idiot.

 

[braumeister]

Most, if not all, states require people to be 21 in order to legally purchase or possess handguns and handgun ammunition. Obviously, those under this age cannot apply for a CHL.

Sortof.

In the US:

Federal law sets a minimum for purchase of handguns at 21, and purchase of long arms at 18. State law actually varies widely. I don't remember the Federal possession minimums, but I do know that again states vary widely, and there are states that have no minimum age for possession.

Which law trumps? The courts feel federal law trumps state law, probably by using a combination of the Commerce clause and the Supremecy clause. However, I think that one could make a good argument that given the original intent of the Commerce Clause and the tenth amendment that the Federal government has no jurisdiction in this area. Good luck getting anywhere in a Federal court these days with that argument.

I'm not familiar with Texas law on this matter, so I'll defer to HazelGod on that matter. But, I do know that in New Hampshire there are folks under 18 who have a resident pistol/revolver permit (New Hampshire's equivalent to Texas's CHL). How did they get it? State law says that town and cities issue permits to any resident that applies that meets criteria set by the state and who pay the fee. There is no minimum age criteria, and age is not a factor in meeting any of the other criteria. So someone under 18 can receive the resident pistol/revolver permit. For those who don't believe me, I can see if I can find the article in the Nashua Telegraph about the Milford police chief testifying at the Statehouse about how he issues a permit to a 16 year old because the state did not allow him to deny it. By the way, New Hampshire's minimum age to purchase a handgun is 18, and the state does not set a minimum age to possess a firearm.

By the way, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.