mises.org — Unfortunately, because the govt has monopolized the educational system & the 2nd Amendment has lost its true meaning, schools will probably not be able to protect themselves more effectively against those who are mad at the world or who have unresolved "issues." Maybe it should be time to hear about how children & teens were saved because of guns.
Oct 24, 2006 View in Crawl 4
vorlonsOct 25, 2006
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” So said the Dalai Lama.
vorlonsOct 25, 2006
Keep in mind that States can allow adults (those over 21years) to carry concealed weapons in schools by pre-empting the federal law. Utah is one that I know of. In Utah teachers, administrators and parents who have a state issued Concealed Carry Weapons permit ALREADY carry in schools. I have not heard of any "nutjob teachers" open firing on their students, students getting a hold of an adults gun from Utah.
joybranOct 25, 2006
"So you're saying it's reasonable for those survivalists in Idaho to have their own tanks and missile launchers, maybe a nuke if they can get them, just in case the Feds come after them someday?"Tanks and missile launchers, yes, because the Feds could use those kinds of weapons to attack them. Nukes would not be reasonable because nukes cannot be used defensively and governments tend not to nuke their own territory. Of course, if the survivalists used those weapons to attack government agents rather than defend against them, they would be criminals guilty of mass murder, but the burden of proof would be on whoever struck first.Unfortunately, the government can always claim to be "enforcing the law" and be believed by gullible people, like they did at Waco. Very few Americans knew enough about what was going on at the time to ask why the ATF conducted a major media SWAT-type raid on people who were suspected of a "crime" (modifying some of the firearms they bought and sold) that only carried the penalty of a small fine.
beosnitchOct 26, 2006
Yes indeed. And now, only slightly more than 50 years later, the current debate on what we should ban at school centers around..... (drum roll) 'tag' <a class="user" href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2606557">http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2606557</a>
curthowlandOct 27, 2006
@ mugenkeiji,"A deterrent is only a deterrent if it is probable or certain that it will be effective if called into operation."Not at all. The person who is contemplating an attack needs only to think that there _can_ be a response. They will then change their actions.That is why, with each and every repeal of the restrictions on regular people carrying/using arms, crime rates drop. It doesn't take dead criminals, it only requires those criminals to believe the odds against them have gone up.In England, for instance, the incidence of "hot" burglaries, that is a breaking and entering when the people are home, is much _MUCH_ higher than in the US. In fact, it's almost unknown. The reason given by criminals is that they are afraid of being shot. They know the odds are against them, it doesn't require knowing that _this_ person is or is not armed. Only that _people_ are sometimes armed.So allowing a teacher who wishes to exercise their right to defend innocent people to do so changes the environment for everyone, merely by the change in attitude to _allow_ it.
curthowlandOct 27, 2006
@nzjrs,"I submit to you that you could most effectively defend you family by moving to a country where people cannot conceal weapons, buy handguns over the counter..."In January of this year, National Geographic ran a story on "Genocide". <a class="user" href="http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0601/feature2/index.html">http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0601/feature2/index.html</a>They even had a very nice graph, which is not online, of the 20th century, mass murders, showing number and time-frame of the deaths.The funny thing about it is that every country mentioned had very strict gun control.Every event mentioned also, strangely enough, was perpetrated by the lawful governments of those killed, with the specific exception of the Japanese occupation of east Asia.So yeah, you have LOTS of countries to choose from but..." ... or be worried about getting shot at school."Getting killed is _exactly_ what to worry about.It is also very instructive to remember that schools are one of the first places to be "gun free zones", yet these killing now happen. When schools had rifle clubs, when no one was restricted from carrying weapons, these killings did not happen."The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."...and...?Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.? ---Thomas Jefferson (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)Gee, almost like human nature doesn't change. The funny thing is that the same argument has been going on ever since small arms were invented. There was _crossbow_ control, back when any mere villein could use that to pick off an armored knight (that, being an agent of the state, was a _bad_ thing).I'll add my own:The very people effected by gun control, that is the "law abiding" citizen, never was and never will be the problem. There have been laws against murder since before there were laws, yet people still commit murder. If someone is already going to commit the most heinous act that a human being can commit, what's a mere paperwork violation?
curthowlandOct 27, 2006
@gandhi2, That's why one of my favorite authors calls the NRA "The largest gun control advocacy group in America".If you want uncompromising, try Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, <a class="user" href="http://www.jpfo.org/">http://www.jpfo.org/</a>They have a great movie available, "Innocents Betrayed", which goes through the genocides of the 20th century, documenting how each one was perpetrated by lawful governments against disarmed citizens.Frightening.
miseseanOct 28, 2006
Compare rates of gun ownership: <a class="user" href="http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html">http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html</a>US: 39% of households have gunsNZ: 22.3% of households have gunsNZ is low down in the "gun deaths" lists, and high up in the "gun ownership" lists (and ISTR reading an NZ govt report a few years ago claiming that NZ's gun control laws were among the most lax in the world). The correlation nzjrs implies is simply not there.
miseseanOct 28, 2006
"The most vehement thought I had through out the hours it went on, was "Why the hell are the police and SWAT not going inside?!""Haven't you heard? Guns + schools = bad. Can't have cops rushing in there with guns! Someone might have been shot!
curthowlandNov 7, 2006
@joybran,This is a good example of what L. Neil Smith means when he talks about the success possible by giving Liberty with both barrels, undiluted.By giving no quarter, no "if, or, but", there is no room for things like the Sgt's comment above of "now we're just haggling over price". Indeed, I agree with him on that point, that allowing for legal restriction means that everything is only a matter of degree, rather than principle.So take the absolute position. Defend complete anarchy, total liberty, legal private ownership of _everything_, limited only by the fact that the rights of you and others cannot conflict. That way there is no ground to give up, no back-peddling, no second guessing. Either the principle of Liberty stands, or it does not.And, if Smith, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises and hundreds of other very fine logicians and theorists can logically and systematically support individual Liberty as the single most efficient method for human action and interaction, all you and I need do is stand on those same fundamental principles and our position is, logically, undeniable.In order to support gun control, for instance, one must deny individual responsibility. One must assume that police and other "armed" services are staffed by extra-ordinary individuals, special and superior, somehow better than everyone else, or the advocate of gun control ends up in the hypocritical position of enforcing the prohibition of arms with the very arms that are prohibited. It's much easier to point out the hypocrisy of gun control than drug prohibition, yet the abuses of drug prohibition are much more well known and acknowledged. Maybe because drug decriminalization is a "liberal" cause, while even the "conservatives" have given in to government control of firearms.Hmmm... Who defends individual liberty in Washington? Is Ron Paul really the _only_ one?
macebeeSep 13, 2007
I think that every American should at least be familiar with the workings of firearms. Education not restriction is the answer to gun violence.
onthetrailMar 17, 2009
Well that is to the point logisical thanks