who wants to go to school with classmates packing heat [link]
My son did. A second-grader brought gun to school because she wanted to be more popular. Oh, and her mother was a cop. Eight years ago, my coworker’s baby boy was shot dead by another kid at his baby-sitter’s house. I see one or two pro-gun comments here. I want to know their take on this and what solutions they have. Respectful dialogue appreciated. I have no intention of derailing this thread. [link]
Fret not about derailing that thread, kind Shodan-san. I have felt sick ever since I read your comment and I think this discussion about guns is relevant and necessary. I can’t even imagine what you felt like as a parent, when you discovered that your precious baby was at school with another child who had naively brought such danger with her. As for what happened to your co-worker, that must be every gun-owning parents’ nightmare.
I once ended a relationship with someone which had some “promise” (i.e. an Orthodox Malayalee etc etc) because he insisted on keeping guns in his home. Even if he had children. I just think the potential for tragedy is too high when you mix the two; not everyone is always as careful as we all should be and children are inherently curious and often, quite clever. He wouldn’t compromise and neither would I. That’s how strongly I feel about the issue– and I know many of you have passionate views on it, too.
One of you had this to say, on the same thread:
I wouldn’t call myself pro-gun but I can’t go as far as saying “ban guns”.
I’m uncomfortable with laws that make it easy to obtain guns, getting them at the local superstore, Kmart Walmart etc is what makes me uncomfortable. I’d prefer to see stricter laws and federal laws to govern the right to bear arms and a person who wants to take up arms and it could be in a lot of different capacities, not always law enforcement, would have to go thru stringent regulations and requirements and training in order to qualify for it. [link]
What do the rest of you think? Several of you are so respectful, you are worried about derailing the original VT thread with this nascent discussion, so I thought I’d open a space for your dialogue here.
::
And one final brown angle to a post on guns in America; PSUBrown wrote in to ask if Andrew Arulanandam, the Public Affairs Director of the NRA was desi. When Abhi played provocateur and wrote about the “potential” need for gun ownership post-Katrina, this question came up in our comments section and the consensus was that he might be of Sri Lankan origin, but there was no confirmation. Other mutineers have asked me about this in the last 24 hours, so if one of you knows more about Mr. Arulanandam, speak up and enlighten us. And if you will permit me to end this post on a slightly lighter note, I put that question to you, our wise crowd because I’m sure one of you is related to or dated him; all Mutineers are two degrees apart, except for this notable mystery woman. 🙂
People of influence were often in the KKK in the 1930s and the 1940s, even in many non-Southern states. You only have to read Black’s jurisprudence to know that he was not a bigot.
But you’re right…this is really not the place or time for this discussion.
i hate testimonializing but i’ll have to make an exception in this instance:
as someone who has spent all their formative years (with the required trips ’round the globe to visit my diaspora-scattered family) in “the south” i’d have to say that HMF’s comments approach “blithering idiot” status.
I’ve lived, loved and learned to the fullest in a place where, yes, many contradictions rule the day. You can get “sand-nigger” thrown at you in one place and a “vanakkam” elsewhere (and yes, both words have wafted by my ears on more than a few occasions). You may find restaurants serving only animal products in some places and welcoming homes serving the finest veggie south indian cuisine elsewhere.
All these contradictions make life sweet–i’d hate to live in a place where at least a few adverse conditions were not present.
The south is not all trailers and cars on cinderblocks. If you go there seeking the KKK, you’ll find them. If you go seeking Ashrams and yoga retreats–you’ll find that too!
open your eyes, HMF and live the beautiful contradiction before denigrating it.
noblekinsman:
You make some good points, but I am not quite clear what this clause means. I suppose, I might be able to move the discussion forward if I had a fuller idea of what you were trying to say. However, this
is not a well-chosen parallel. In one case, the ‘merit’ stems from depriving others of their basic freedom to live and pursue happiness by jailing them up so that the majority feel safer; in the case of gun control, all that you are deprived of is your gun. Surely, you are not comparing the right to own a gun, to the much more universal right to live in freedom.
JoAT: The sad part about the right to bear arms is that kids (like the 2-year old Shodan mentions) and emotionally disturbed individuals (like Cho, or for that matter most of us at some point of life or the other when we briefly lose emotional and rational balance) unwittingly become killing machines. A state senator from Virginia is currently embroiled in legal trouble because of not taking sufficient care of his handgun, which resulted ultimately in the death of a teenage kid in the neighbourhood.
The shopkeeper that sold Cho his gun, rues the day he sold it to him. I cannot imagine that gun being used for any other purpose. At best the use of a gun lies in its non-use; at worst, it is an instrument of death.
Hey dude. Go F#($ yourself. How many times to I have to #$)(*#(@$ apologize for the same #$()@(ing thing? It was a joke, poorly crafted, in bad taste and all that jazz. I can go into my underlying beliefs supporting the iota of criticism the joke contained, (and, no this doesn’t exonerate every other place in the world of wrong doing) at another time and place; then you can decide if I’m the societal progress killing machine I seem to be.
I think we’re all a little raw from everything that’s happened. Would it be possible to steer the discussion back to guns/the tragedy at VT vs. HMF’s views? I think the pro-Southern delegation has made their point well. No need to pile on further.
The most prominent scientist of all, Isaac Newton, was the quintessential loner. Einstein, the only other scientist mentioned in the same breath as Newton, had this to say about his own “loner”liness: “Although I am a typical loner in my daily life, my awareness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has prevented me from feelings of isolation.”
SM Intern, I agree with you on the turn this thread is taking. However, one of the roadblocks to a clearer understanding of the gun problem is such prejudice. When one group refuses to participate in collective ownership of an issue and is so ready to pin it on another, how are we going to have reasonable dialogue and progress? “My people and I could never be that uncivilized, so group X, Y or Z should have their rights taken away.”
That said and getting back to the point, how about those knives and our inherent craziness, huh?
Just thinking out loud…
If it were made legal for every citizen and legal permanent resident to carry a concealed weapon, for their own safety, shouldn’t the legal visitors/non-resident aliens be extended the same courtesy?
Any nut job can walk into any major engineering graduate department in any-univ, USA, knowing well that any “foreign-face” he sees in there is probably not legal to carry a weapon…
Prema, I was thinking of precisely that statement, let me highlight the section that struck me as the main thrust of his sentence.
I think he is talking about the scientific community here, perhaps more precisely, the community of theoretical physicists he engaged with. It is his sense of belonging that made him a non-loner even though he did not necessarily chat up everyone in the street. This is a man who interacted with colleagues, collaborators across countries and dicussed topics that were beyond the ordinary individual. To draw a somewhat unfortunate parallel, being a scientist is like being a Trekkie geek, most people in your ‘hood don’t understand you, but you know you have an extended ‘invisible community’ that you belong to, where you have friends who understand your motivations and intents.
Newton, for that matter, was exactly like that. He corresponded with Hooke, Locke and even mounted a protracted, bitter rivalry against Leibniz which ended up dividing English and continental mathematicians into two rival factions.
Excellent point, Maitri. I was pre-emptively intervening because I am proud of the discussion and want it to continue, that’s all. I’m noticing that some of the commenters (like HMF) seem to be taking a “this is not the time, nor the place” approach to certain issues and during such a difficult moment, I wanted to be sensitive to that sentiment, hence the creation of this very thread. I really appreciate your help in steering everything, even when you see roadblocks. Especially when you see them.
I think Purush, raises exactly the right points by arguing that the 2nd Amendment was necessary to the founding of the state, but is no longer applicable. The point is not if someone is a loner or not, the point is that giving anyone that easy a means of killing others is not a very comforting idea. The US is no longer a frontier territory. Other countries seem to do pretty fine with having cops around to guard and protect them.
The US is no longer a frontier territory. Other countries seem to do pretty fine with having cops around to guard and protect them.
Imagine you live in a rural area in western Nebraska or South Dakota, miles away from the nearest sheriff’s office. There is an intruder in your barn, and he’s headed to your house. What would you do? Would you feel just a little better if you had a shotgun you could get to quickly? Especially if you knew it would take a police officer 20 minutes to respond to your 9-11 call?
There is no magic bullet to rid society of it’s ills. Each country as other posts have alluded to have different situations and boundary conditions.
For a country as large as the United States in diversity, size, and urban-rural-suburban divide, how local communities police themselves is varied, too. The existing supply of guns in this country is very large (legal and illegal). From what I’ve read, and I don’t have the references here with me, most gun crime occurs via illegal weapons usually involving gang/drug violence.
If weapons are to be banned, the massive existing supply will go underground. Gangs, who already have a stead supply of weapons, will be unaffected. It will only become another valued product for cartels shipping drugs through the porous borders. Like meth or cocaine.
It may seem like an obscure solution, but as with many things, training, education, and recognizing root problems are far more important. Even if tools like guns are eliminated (IMHO for the United States not a practical possibility), it won’t get rid of the root causes that afflict us. Los Angeles and DC with their strict gun laws are still riddled with gun violence. Economics, education, demographics all play into these things.
I’ve heard the analogies how the VT murderer would have not inflicted as many casualties with a knife. But thats assuming he felt limited in his options. We don’t know. Homemade pipe bombs, illegal weapons, etc. are more difficult to obtain, but once someone has committed themselves to do such an act (like the Columbine kids who had planning involved), I highly doubt the difficulty of obtaining a weapon would limit that person.
Switzerland does not equal South Africa does not equal Great Britain does not equal the United States does not equal Canada. Different strokes for different folks. In India for example, there is a cottage industry of homemade guns in places like UP and Bihar. They’re crude, but still effective in killing.
We can’t put the genie back in the bottle and look for, pardon the pun, a shot gun approach. (By the way, for home defense, the vast population would be better off with a shotgun vs a handgun simply because most aren’t trained well enough to handle a hand gun or possess the ability to shoot correctly in an adrenalin charged situation).
I’m a supporter of the second amendment for the American landscape. With our givens, I’d rather have the ability to possess weapons and push for better enforcement of current laws, go after illegal arms dealers, and have a system in place to ensure proper safety and law abiding people to have weapons as they please, but above all have a system in place to thoroughly train/educate people on guns and the RESPONSIBILITY that goes with it. You NEVER pull a gun out or point one until you’re prepared to shoot. I’ve read of life long CCW owners who walk away, even though they posses a weapon. Bottom line, you never know what the other person has or their state of mind. Gun are not to be used for looking strong or intimidating people. I’m not out here to change anyone’s opinions, just throwing my 2 cents in here. YMMV.
I don’t know if any of you have heard of Millwood,VA,I spent some of my childhood years there and I can tell you that they have no police what so ever the nearest police station is in town about five or so miles away if no further and it would behoove anybody to not have any kind of protecion in their home incase of a break in. I believe that you should have the right to have a weapon in your home and will stand by that till the day I die. Hear is a saying I know that has been heard before and there is some truth in it. “power comes from the end of a barrel.”
there certainly are parts of the US where owning a gun is fairly necessary (like Rio Arriba county in NM…or anywhere in NM for that matter) but coming from an ultra-rural VA, i can tell you with all honesty that it’s not necessary to have guns for ‘protection’ purposes in all ultra-rural areas–against crazed beasties (never really lived till you hear the chuffing of a bear cub when you’re 3 miles deep in an old-growth forest)or intruders that your mind conjures into being.
existential danger is no rationale for gun ownership. I’d never trust a single one of my friends with a gun in any kind of pressure situation–how am I supposed to feel comfortable with knowing that any of my classmates could be toting to Anthro 301?
I’ve fired a number of weapons at ranges and outdoors (from mac 10s to the glock 9mm) and it definitely does give you that big swingin’ dick gangster feeling but only until you put it down and realize there are maybe 1 in a million instances in which you could safely use it.
And Cho played online video games with people around the world. How does that change the fact that Newton and Cho were loners?
Most murders are not committed by loners. Far from it. On the other hand loners are disproportionately represented among the geniuses and saints of mankind.
I can’t help thinking about the fact that the authorities at IIT-B have restricted internet access to promote social interaction among students. There seems to be some connection on all this…..
Social networking as vigil, memorial.
taken from another site about gun control and why seemingly it doesnt work:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, dissidents and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: millions and millions.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, so criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
existential danger is no rationale for gun ownership. I’d never trust a single one of my friends with a gun in any kind of pressure situation–how am I supposed to feel comfortable with knowing that any of my classmates could be toting to Anthro 301?
Well, I would argue that it’s often more than existential danger. But I do agree that students packing heat isn’t a good fix to this problem.
How many people have actually used a gun to defend themselves?? Are there any statistics about that?? Are there any real statistics about the likelyhood of an american household getting attacked by unknown assailants?
Deterrence will not work against suicidal killers.
I’m reminded of that pearl jan song “jeremy” about a schoolboy loner that everyone knew wasn’t quite right and who ends up going out in a homicidal rage. I know it’s pure speculation at this point, but the VT killer may well have been developing schizophrenia- this is about the age when a first episode psychotic break typically happens. He may (again speculation) may have had no idea what was going on in his brain. Having said that, most schizophrenics are not violent. And don’t have this guy’s aim.
Video games are impersonal and unreal. It would be a stretch to compare those Newton with an online gamer. But I agree with your main point, Prema, that to distinguish loners from non-loners is a very silly way to go about trying to figure out who is a murderer and who is not.
ALMfD, by deterrence, you mean deterring the suicidal killer from killing by threatening him with a gun, right? Just to be clear that you did not mean deterring a suicidal killer from walking over to a gun-store and buying a gun — because that kind of deterrence does work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-Kon
Thanks for the post Anna. At times like these I miss slow news days.
Maitri, Your Chris Rock reference (24) is spot on. I grew up in an interesting part of Mumbai. Witnessed more than a couple knifings. These used to be, for the want of better term, specialised jobs. Guns changed all that. I remember older thugs getting all nostalgic about good old days. “Now every two-bit punk wants to be a bhai”, they used to complain.
I am not romantisising murderers, but guns make taking someone’s life fairly easy and impersonal. There should be plenty of roadblocks between violent thoughts and violent action.
AMFD, I thought you were talking about this almost identically named book. Weir provides stats on most of the countries named in this thread. His theory / pipe dream of more equitable society is worth looking into.
A few years ago I heard movie line “God did not make all men equal, Mr Colt did”. For many years, I was a firm believer that guns were to be used only in gun clubs. But a stint in the USA changed my mind. Now am quite ambivalent. Down under, as a black fella I was quite uncomfortable with visiting nightclubs and pubs coz I was wont to get harassed by the white fellas. Then, I lived a couple of years in the “Deep South”. During this period I began to carry a handgun openly (got it from a mate) and I never ever got harassed in any nightclub or pub. Was there a causal connection – maybe. But ever since my return, I have wished that I could carry a handgun – openly. No concealed carry for me. Unfortunately in Australia, criminals carry guns not law abiding citizens. I am a puny 5’6 nerdy black fella and with a gun I can walk fearlessly and hold my own in any brawl. I feel the need to have gun all the more now that I have a child. Protect my famiily from criminals – what other reason? As for those who repose their faith in cops – I dont trust nor like them. God helps those who help themselves.
For the gun control advocates, Australia is a good test case. We had very lax laws till the mid 90s when we had a major massacre like the one at VT. Gun laws were tightened. I have not see any statistics that show Australia is a safer place or that folks feel safer than before – when gun laws were lax.
I think the correct expression is “Now every dedhphutia tapori wants to be a bhai.” Sorry, I just finished reading Sacred Games.
I think the suggestion that it would have been safer on the VT campus if more students had guns is incredibly illogical. I don’t think anyone on this thread said that (I haven’t read all the comments, since there were so many), but I know it’s been brought up by some conservative pundits. I heard that East Asian students were profiled on VT and some got hate mail and other race-based treatment. Keeping that in mind, I think it would have been an even worse situation if more students had a gun in a time of such tension, fear, and suspicion.
I meant, “and other kinds of race-based mistreatment”.
A recurring theme here is that guns make people feel “safe”.
A quick visit to http://www.DarwinAwards.com will cure you of that feeling: Look at the looooong list of incidents where people killed or injured themselves through a combination of stupidity and guns.
Another thing…. The major part of “social control” — the ways in which humans interact to restrain and divert aggression — is NOT accomplished through threats and weapons.
More subtle means of social control are contracts, mutual benefits, taboos, shaming, protocol (i.e. “courtesy” and “manners”) and consensus.
It’s not the absence of handguns, but the absence of protocols — manners, courtesy, consideration for others — which allows for aggression to escalate in society. If you teach your children to be polite, not to casually curse or humiliate their peers, the long-term effect is to diminish the unchecked resentment and rage which leads to violence.
To put it bluntly, American society must (again) teach itself the art of civility. Stop saying “F***” all the time, and say “please” a little more. Is that too much to ask for? Or would you rather buy a Glock than say please…
Anyone think there is going to be a push in congress to place restrictions on permanent residents from obtaining guns? I don’t think it would even hold up in courts.
Apparently there was a bill passed recently that allowed gun stores to destroy purchase records within 24-48 hrs. Does anyone know any more about this?
How recent is recent? There was something regarding this way back in 2004
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/0452213
The VT massacre does not make me question the US gun laws one way or the other. This tragedy had nothing to do with the easier availability of guns, and I am not at all pro-gun. Criminals or deranged persons will always find a way to get hold of weapons. How hard is it to buy drugs in a country where all drugs are illegal? If there is money to be made trafficking in guns, there will be guns for purchase.
What the VT tragedy makes me question is whether as a nation we have a propensity for shooting rampage. There have been quite a few major ones such as VT but also many on smaller scale (McDonald’s, US Post Office), if such a thing can even be considered small. Are there stats showing similar bizarre crimes in other countries?
GujuDude “In India for example, there is a cottage industry of homemade guns in places like UP and Bihar. They’re crude, but still effective in killing.”
I am from Bihar and can substantiate your remark about the easy availability of guns in Bihar, or anywhere, when people want them. I was sitting in a bar one night in Patna, which probably should not be undertaken without packing a gun, and struck up a conversation with some unsavory but friendly types. They offered this NRI babu a little trip to the countryside next day to fire AK-47’s. I later found out that AK-47 is the weapon of choice among the criminals of Eastern India. (Of course, I didn’t go.)
Re: over-generalizing the south and guns. Here are some lyrics from the band that brought us “Sweet Home Alabama”
Lynyrd Skynryd lyrics from “Saturday Night Special”:
Its a saturday night special Got a barrel thats blue and cold Aint no good for nothin But put a man six feet in a hole
. . .
Hand guns are made for killin Aint no good for nothin else And if you like your whiskey You might even shoot yourself So why dont we dump em people To the bottom of the sea Before some fool come around here Wanna shoot either you or me
I’m sorry people do stupid things all the time, stupid things with guns aren’t exceptions. The Darwin awards are a testimony to that. Even police officers have shot themselves accidentally while cleaning guns and they are trained to do this.
That’s a simplistic approach to a more complex problem more like brushing the real issue under the rug. The most of America is polite and civil and doesn’t curse. You only need to go a few hours north or a few hours west of NYC to get a sense of how skewed the perception of America might be for someone who may not have exposure to the reset of America.
I think the reason there have been so many school and college shootings is that there are so many schools and colleges! Similarly, there are lots of post offices and McDonalds in the US, so a ‘workplace shooting’ is quite likely to be a shooting in a post office or a McDonalds. This is not to discount any peculiarly oppressive individual situations in either post-offices or McDs.
Of course, the reason there are so many shootings in the first place is the easy availablity of guns combined with widespread mental health issues of one sort of another. So addressing the mental health issues – prevention, diagnosis, treatment – is more likely to work. Changing the fundamental incentive structure of the economy could also go a long way, but that may be too much to ask. The US is not going to become a Sweden or even Canada.
On the meta-issue here, I agree that outlawing guns is not the solution, on the other hand, I find ‘second Amendment literalism’ hilarious. So much has changed since that got written down, and the ‘well-regulated militia’ they envisioned was the kind that Switzerland now has, with ‘cantons’, regular drills, etc – with everyone being white male of course – that to even bring it up seems funny to me.
And the Constitution protects the right to bear arms. It makes no limit at “guns” For the gun owners, why not rocket launchers, or RPG’s, or as Michael Moore asks James Nichols, weapons grade plutonium? Before questions of logistics comes into play (not everyone has access to aluminium tubes), the question is should one have the right to own these weapons?
Workplace shooting is far common in the US than most people would like to admit and perhaps it is as a result of easy gun availability and access to the guns by crazies. This happened in my building a week after Sept 11 and it was a nightmare. Squat teams originally came into the building and sweeped everyone and we thought it was a bomb scare or something crazy was going on. The people from the Blue Cross office which was above was were running like mad and we all panicked. We all heard the shots thru the floor but didn’t think they were gunshots. The guy who shot those people was apparently a FBI agent.
Well the following year P Diddy moved into the building and they put up metal detectors in the entrance of the building!!
I don’t at all agree with the intent of this Pawpaw post, but the following paragraph alone makes a good point:
If each one of us accepts personal responsibility towards our actions and the results of those actions, there may be some hope. Helping people confront their anger and problems, and hence make more rational decisions with the understanding of personal responsibility, is the realm of mental health counseling and treatment. Again, it’s not the panacea, nothing is, but it’s a great start.
All constitutional rights are subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions. If you can be legitimately prevented from yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater, you can also be legitimately restricted from owning rocket launchers, weapons grade plutonium, etc.
The 2nd Amendment is not an all-or-nothing proposition, in my opinion. There are those who would say that any limit on the right to bear arms is a step in the direction of a total ban. I think that’s nuts. If you’re willing to tolerate restrictions on your other rights in the interests of public safety, national security or whatever, then you should be willing to tolerate restrictions on your right to bear arms as well. The 2nd Amendment is not more sacrsanct than your other rights.
Some statistics that I just looked up at NationMaster Murder with Fire Arms
1 South Africa: 31,918
2 Colombia: 21,898
3 Thailand: 20,032
#4 United States: 8,259
5 Mexico: 3,589
6 Zimbabwe: 598
7 Germany: 384
8 Belarus: 331
9 Czech Republic: 213
Murder
1 India: 37,170
2 Russia: 28,904
3 Colombia: 26,539
4 South Africa: 21,995
5 Mexico: 13,829
#6 United States: 12,658
7 Venezuela: 8,022
8 Thailand: 5,140
9 Ukraine: 4,418
10 Indonesia: 2,204
Assaults
1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
Likewise, you can legitimately be restricted to only owning a crossbow, slingshot and pea shooter. That’s my point, the Constitution makes no reference to ‘gun’ whatsoever.
Not to go off on a tangent, JOAT, but this was Sept 11, 2002 ! Plus, it was a love triangle looks like, not a classic workplace shooting scenario!
My apologies I meant to say a year after and it was around the time there were 2 bomb threats in adjacent buildings (I’m sure NYC gets bomb threats all the time that we don’t know about). It was a work place love triangle but a freak violent workplace incidence nevertheless. I feel like I hear these stories in the news all the time. Someone goes into work to shoot someone and often shoots other people who happen to be around as well.
Likewise, you can legitimately be restricted to only owning a crossbow, slingshot and pea shooter.
I suppose that would depend on whether such restrictions were reasonable. I’m not sure I really agree that because the 2nd Amendment doesn’t expressly say “guns”, such weapons can be excluded. At the time the 2nd Amendment was adopted, guns were common, and in fact, state militia men armed themselves with guns.
We need to go back and review the Constitutional Convention debates to see if anyone mentioned “guns” or “firearms” to be sure.
Hema but the constitution is also debatable and had a lot of interpretations and that’s what makes it so fluid and applicable. If we ask it to require specific clarification but that would require amendments. Not an easy thing to happen.
To my understanding the right to bear arms doesn’t state guns specifically. “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.” I’d rather someone with intimate knowledge of this weigh in on the issue.
It was passed during a time in history when a good man bore arms to protect his country and the militia was everyone really and the country was still solidifying. It has been argued that Madison was simply stating in writing what was common acceptable law for that day.
Hema but the constitution is also debatable and had a lot of interpretations and that’s what makes it so fluid and applicable
One school of thought is that interpretation should be based on the intent of the Framers, and the Framers almost certainly meant “arms” to include any firearms that were common in the day. There are many Constitutional scholars who would balk at the idea of the Constitution as “flexible” or “fluid”.
All I’m saying is that reading “guns” out of “arms” in the 2nd Amendment is not necessarily a reasonable interpretation, and it may not be justified by the historical context of the Amendment either.