Why are school shootings a sole unique American problem?

BNR32FAN said:

Gun regulations have been in place for over 60 years now. The whole reason I bought a gun to begin with was to protect my children not so that I could go out and shoot children.

Click to expand...

Are you in a particularly rural or high crime area?

rambot said:

It's very, VERY easy to argue the entire 2nd ammendment has been completely twisted and perverted in meaning and intent.

The only reason it would NEED to be repealed is because of how rulings in courts have led it there. Death by 1000 papercuts....or maybe in this case, 1000 bbs

Click to expand...

You could easily argue that, but you'd be wrong. So many don't seem to have a knowledge of US history (US citizens here; it's understandable for those in other countries). At the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified along with the other Bill of Right, and well into the 19th Century; militia duty was mandatory. Were you a citizen and able to carry a firearm? Congratulations: you were in the militia. That made you subject to being called to duty by the local militia officer (in some states commissioned by state legislatures; in others apparently elected by each unit), by the state officers, and to be federalized into the US Army. Federalization seems to have served the same purpose as the draft in later eras.

You were compensated for your militia duty. It must have been better at that time than modern compensation for jury duty, for I know of an instance of falsifying duty records. That brings up another topic: Mess up while on militia duty, and you were subject to court martial. Somewhere in my file cabinet I have a copy of the proceedings of one such court martial.

I don't think there was really such a thing as the ad hoc "militias" that popped up in the US in the 20th Century. Such were considered a type of armed band, but not a militia. Since most of what I looked was for early US history, I'm not sure when it transitioned to the type of unit Abraham Lincoln was an officer of, or groups of volunteers forming up and incorporated into Northern and Southern armies in the US Civil War, but even that wasn't an ad hoc militia.

Which is probably more than anyone wanted to know about militias.

RocksInMyHead said:

Ok. I AM a US citizen, and I'd like to discuss reasonable gun regulation (i.e. confiscation isn't on the table). @driewerf's list of potential restrictions is a decent starting point. I've also seen the Czech Republic's gun laws proposed as a model (they have a similar constitutional provision for gun ownership). I'll have to read up on Canada's laws.

Click to expand...

Again, we have the following:

"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."

This presents the problem of constitutionality with such plans.

Another problem is one that cropped up in "shall issue" states for licensing to carry firearms: It was possible to slow the process until no one could be issued a license. One of the things that pushed opened carry legislation in some states was when the local government offices assigned to process such requests were shut down due to COVID-19 and people couldn't obtain or renew their licenses.

driewerf said:

It is interesting to see you write a long text for the third time now, just for evading the core of the post you're replying to.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you think I care.

Tuur said:

Interesting. You're an Australian and yet concerned about how the US does things within it's own country. It doesn't bother me that your country doesn't have a Bill of Rights, with such freedoms as you have implied by your constitution and not explicitly protected. I think the Australian argument goes that to define a thing is to limit it. To me that also implies that those rights exist at the pleasure of the state. But it's your country, not mine.

Click to expand...

You think I don't travel, read books, listen to the news, discuss politics, enjoy varied conversations on various forums and that I don't take an interest in the world past my countries borders?

Yeah, I take an interest in America and always have. Especially its politics. From JFK onwards. I hope that doesn't come as a surprise.

Now, is there any chance whatsoever that you might take an interest in the gun problem in the US and discuss what you think could and perhaps should be done.

Bradskii said:

You think I don't travel, read books, listen to the news, discuss politics, enjoy varied conversations on various forums and that I don't take an interest in the world past my countries borders?

Click to expand...

I think you haven't lived in the US. I'm quite sure you have an opinion on how the US does things, just as I have an opinion on how Australia does things. The funny thing though is our opinion of the other's country is completely irrelevant.

Tuur said:

Again, we have the following:

"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."

This presents the problem of constitutionality with such plans.

Click to expand...

Not really, because certain infringements have been established as being constitutional. Background checks, special permits/tax stamps for particular kinds of weapons or accessories, the outright banning of certain arms, etc. Once you allow one infringement, the whole "shall not be infringed" argument becomes moot.

So, either you argue for total unrestricted access to any and all weaponry for any citizen, or you agree to discuss the grounds on which the government can impose certain regulations.

Tuur said:

I think you haven't lived in the US. I'm quite sure you have an opinion on how the US does things, just as I have an opinion on how Australia does things. The funny thing though is our opinion of the other's country is completely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Do you understand exactly what a forum is? You've been here for a couple of months so I would imagine that you've picked things up by now. But just as a heads up, I'll give you a quick run down.

It's a place where different people from different parts of the world with different denominations, sometimes different faiths, sometimes none at all, with different politics and different ideologies and different views about the world meet now and then to discuss a variety of topics. Some sections of the forum dealing with specifically Christian matters are off limits to non Christians. Otherwise, everyone is welcome to join in any discussion at all.

This section of the forum is nominated for political discussion. And this particular section for American politics. And as you will have noted, there are not just Americans who are posting here. Just as there aren't just citizens of the UK posting in threads about matters that concern UK residents. Or only Australians posting in threads about Australian matters.

All people posting have a right to their beliefs and it's entirely acceptable that, within the rules of the forum, they are encouraged, and in fact expected, to post their views to keep an open discussion going that will reflect any number of beliefs from as many people as possible.

That's what this forum is about. It's not a place where anyone can say 'You're not from here, so your views don't count.' That's a self centered and parochial view that says more about the person stating it than any arguments he or she would make on the topic de jour.

So cut out the 'Americans only' dross, buddy and how about actually making a contribution to the thread. You know, you could give us your views on the pros and cons of gun control perhaps. Or how America deals with guns as opposed to other first world nations. Maybe you don't think the death rate is actually a problem. Maybe you have some ideas that haven't been thought of.

Anyway, that's what this place is for, so you can tell us what you think about the topic. So back to you for some input...

Tuur said:

Again, we have the following:

"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."

This presents the problem of constitutionality with such plans.

Another problem is one that cropped up in "shall issue" states for licensing to carry firearms: It was possible to slow the process until no one could be issued a license. One of the things that pushed opened carry legislation in some states was when the local government offices assigned to process such requests were shut down due to COVID-19 and people couldn't obtain or renew their licenses.

Click to expand...

Nobody asked for what the second amendment says. Most people here know what it says. What different people are curious for is your opinion and that of other gun owners. Many propositions for starting a discussion have been made, your multiple deflections are becoming comical.

driewerf said:

Nobody asked for what the second amendment says. Most people here know what it says. What different people are curious for is your opinion and that of other gun owners. Many propositions for starting a discussion have been made, your multiple deflections are becoming comical.

Click to expand...

Far be it from me to tax your patience with another long text.

Tuur said:

Far be it from me to tax your patience with another long text.

Click to expand...

You don't tax my patience with long or short texts. You test my patience with irrelevant posts.
But I will note that you want that business goes on as usual, and that a pile of dead children bodies isn't an incentive to even think about options to improve the situation.

"Canadian law requires citizens to undergo robust background checks and mandatory training before obtaining a gun license.

And unlike some training programs, students are not the only ones gathering information. Instructors serve as a first line of defense, observing and making note of any students they determine should not own a gun.

“If the instructors see a student that comes in who they feel just is not doing well at life in general, and perhaps should not have a firearm, we’ll give that student a full refund, we’ll create a complete written report for our records, and we’ll supply a copy of that report to the (government) firearms center as well,” said Travis Bader, owner of Silvercore Advanced Training in Canada.

According to the Canadian Commissioner of Firearms, the number of people denied a license or had theirs revoked has been climbing, to more than 4,000 in 2019."

continued from above:

"According to training expert Travis Bader, the Canadian government does “criminal record checks, background checks, reference checks,” and interviews spouses and family members of gun license applicants.

Bader noted that, even after students pass the mandatory training program, national law enforcement officials run daily database checks on those with gun licenses to ensure they have not engaged in criminal activity."


"Another difference between the US and Canada: waiting periods before one can obtain a gun.

In Canada, residents seeking to purchase a firearm must wait 28 days before taking possession. By contrast, in the United States, there is no federal waiting period if an applicant passes a government criminal database check"

driewerf said:

You don't tax my patience with long or short texts. You test my patience with irrelevant posts.
But I will note that you want that business goes on as usual, and that a pile of dead children bodies isn't an incentive to even think about options to improve the situation

Click to expand...

"We need to figure out the exact height of
This "pile" of dead children. If we can't define our terms then we can't figure out what the problem is."

This seems to be the type of argument that grinds change to a halt

rambot said:

"We need to figure out the exact height of
This "pile" of dead children. If we can't define our terms then we can't figure out what the problem is."

This seems to be the type of argument that grinds change to a halt

Click to expand...

Actually, the impression I have from other threads about thread is rather an attitude like "Any solution needs to solve the entire crime problem immediately and I may not be bothered or hindered by it in he lightest or request to give in on even my rights.;"

rambot said:

This seems to be the type of argument that grinds change to a halt

Click to expand...

We’re well past the grinding to a halt stage. We’re at the school children are an acceptable loss stage and have been for some time.

RocksInMyHead said:

Not really, because certain infringements have been established as being constitutional. Background checks, special permits/tax stamps for particular kinds of weapons or accessories, the outright banning of certain arms, etc. Once you allow one infringement, the whole "shall not be infringed" argument becomes moot.

So, either you argue for total unrestricted access to any and all weaponry for any citizen, or you agree to discuss the grounds on which the government can impose certain regulations.

Click to expand...

It seems that you concede that current laws already infringe on the 2nd Amendment. The problem with arguing that this makes the 2nd Amendment moot is that it leads to the argument that all of the US Constitution is a moot point.

That said, I think you come close to the central debate. From a history standpoint, I'm thinking of laws that prohibited Bowie knives and Arkansas Toothpicks. This is perhaps particularly apt because there wasn't a clear idea of what these weapons were, so it's very much in line with the "assault weapon" label of today. To the best of my knowledge, bans on such never reached the US Supreme Court.

Various firearm regulations have, which you are alluding to. I'm trying to think if one prior to the 14th Amendment went to the USSC. That was during firearm confiscation from blacks after the end of the US Civil War. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the argument went that since blacks weren't citizens, they weren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. That non-citizen argument was used to justify other things, such as denying the right to vote, and all of it together is why there's a 14th and 15th Amendment. My guess is that you're referring to United States vs Miller, which is slightly different than the topic at hand, but raises the question of whether it was the right decision.

Some here may be interested in a paper titled Freedmen with Firearms, by David H. Schenk, Marquette University, which details confiscation of firearms from blacks in the United States.

My opinion is shaped by what history I know of it, But mainly it's that the 2nd Amendment is clear: "...Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. It's not how it's treated, mainly out of convenience, yet if the US Constitution is to have any real meaning, then it and the amendments should be regarded as meaning what is written. If the 2nd Amendment is problematic, the proper way of doing things is introduce and ratify another amendment, not pretending it doesn't say what it says. That's important, because if a constitutionally protected right can be infringed in the name of expediency, then the constitution means nothing.

That, of course, means convicted felons could own firearms. Unlike the 14th Amendment, which contains a provision for removing the right to vote from those guilty of crimes, there is none in the 2nd. Whether that includes those who are mentally ill is more hazy (I'm thinking of the 1st Amendment ruling that stated it didn't give one the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater." Yet if the 2nd can be abridged in such instances, what of the 4th and 14th?

If anyone wants an example of what happens when such laws are enacted in the name of expediency, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 is a good example. Out of fear of French style revolt in the US, there were a set of laws enacted to prevent sedition. Problem was, they were also used to squelch criticism of President John Adams, but not Vice-President Thomas Jefferson. No doubt there was the feeling "We've got to do something," but the something they did had effects beyond the intent.

Tuur said:

It seems that you concede that current laws already infringe on the 2nd Amendment. The problem with arguing that this makes the 2nd Amendment moot is that it leads to the argument that all of the US Constitution is a moot point.

Click to expand...

Note that I explicitly did NOT state that the 2nd amendment was moot - just the argument that because it states "shall not be infringed" we cannot place further restrictions on gun ownership. There are two ways to take this: first, as you have stated, that the 2nd amendment as a whole is moot, or second, as I would contend, that "shall not be infringed" is contingent on the first half of the amendment - "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state". In other words, you must be part of a well-regulated militia in order for your rights to keep and bear arms to not be infringed upon.

Additionally, if we want to focus in on specific words and phrases, the amendment specifies a "well-regulated militia", which implies some ability of the government to impose regulations, and the amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear all arms shall not be infringed. "Arms" could mean anything from swords and knives all the way up to aircraft carriers. If we allow anyone to buy knives but forbid anything else, then technically, the people still have the right to bear arms.

You could also make an argument that because we now have a standing national army, which we explicitly did not have when the 2nd amendment was written, a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the state, meaning that the necessity of people having the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

RocksInMyHead said:

You could also make an argument that because we now have a standing national army, which we explicitly did not have when the 2nd amendment was written, a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the state, meaning that the necessity of people having the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

Click to expand...

Your arguments before this are actually quite good, and my complements. This one I have disagreement with. First, there was a standing army at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, only that it wasn't a large one. Second, there have been arguments that the National Guard serves the same role as the militia, and technically it's not a standing army. Third, US law states can have state funded state defense forces. That tends to be obscure, and came out of an old sore topic with the states: Federalizating militia units. Best I can recall, the Federal government cannot federalize state defense forces.

There's another that's not quite a forth point: Some states still maintain militia districts. Don't know if all states do, but they were once shown on county maps. In at least part of the Eastern US, before the practice of surveying land prior to settlement, deeds referenced the militia district. That may or may not be why militia districts continued in places. That said, in the 1970s I was told (but was unable to verify) that a state could still call up people for the militia should the situation warrant.

I don't know about that. It would depend on the laws of individual states. I do know that in the 1970s I saw an honest-to-goodness posse organized by local law enforcement (why it was organized turned out to be a hoax with the two behind it in a great big heap of trouble). Have also seen two coworkers deputized in a situation. It's something that remains in the realm of possibility.

Tuur said:

Your arguments before this are actually quite good, and my complements. This one I have disagreement with. First, there was a standing army at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, only that it wasn't a large one. Second, there have been arguments that the National Guard serves the same role as the militia, and technically it's not a standing army. Third, US law states can have state funded state defense forces. That tends to be obscure, and came out of an old sore topic with the states: Federalizating militia units. Best I can recall, the Federal government cannot federalize state defense forces.

There's another that's not quite a forth point: Some states still maintain militia districts. Don't know if all states do, but they were once shown on county maps. In at least part of the Eastern US, before the practice of surveying land prior to settlement, deeds referenced the militia district. That may or may not be why militia districts continued in places. That said, in the 1970s I was told (but was unable to verify) that a state could still call up people for the militia should the situation warrant.

I don't know about that. It would depend on the laws of individual states. I do know that in the 1970s I saw an honest-to-goodness posse organized by local law enforcement (why it was organized turned out to be a hoax with the two behind it in a great big heap of trouble). Have also seen two coworkers deputized in a situation. It's something that remains in the realm of possibility.

Click to expand...

So any suggestions what can be done to reduce the deaths?