Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
96 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

GS Chandy
"28 DEAD IN SCHOOL SHOOTING; SHOOTER KILLED MOTHER AND HIMSELF" - http://www.businessinsider.com/sandy-hook-shooting-gundman-2012-12

"How Japan Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths" - http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-guns-2012-12?op=1 (An article reprinted from "The Atlantic")
QUOTE:
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. With almost one privately-owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.
UNQUOTE

I wonder:  Would effective gun control laws be considered to be "unacceptable social engineering"?

[I for one would wonder why Japan even allows  the possession of ANY firearms at all (shotguns and such even under its severely restrictive laws).  Why not simply ban ALL private ownership of firearms?  What purpose do they serve in a lawful world (apart from profits for their manufacturers and dealers)?  

[Why not work towards creating a world that is generally  law-abiding instead of generally lawless, which seems to be the case today.  Ah yes, would that be considered to be 'social engineering' by some?]

For the record, India's gun control laws are quite restrictive - though they are generally rather ineffectively implemented, as are most of our laws.  My primary recommendation for my country is that we need to start implementing, effectively for a change, the laws that we do have in place - while debating effectively about what might be the laws that we need as a free nation, that would enable all:

- -- to live in reasonable happiness AND
- -- to fulfill their own individual human potential.  

Would this position be considered to be 'social engineering'?.

Just asking (mainly to find out which part of the political/social spectrum I might be considered to inhabit).  

GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Robert Hansen

On Dec 15, 2012, at 8:42 PM, GS Chandy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Why not simply ban ALL private ownership of firearms?  What purpose do they serve in a lawful world (apart from profits for their manufacturers and dealers)? 

Maybe your barn is lawful but the world is certainly not.

Bob Hansen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Further my post dated  Dec 16, 2012 7:12 AM:

"Authorities have released the names of the victims in the Connecticut school shootings".  Here's a link to a news story proving a link to the names of both children and teachers:
http://news.msn.com/us/names-of-victims-in-connecticut-shooting-released .

It may be worth highlighting the names of two of the victims:
- -- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female (age 27)
Victoria Soto, a teacher for Grade I at the school, died (according to the newsreports I've seen) because she put herself in the way of the gunman's bullets to protect the children in her charge.

- -- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female (age 47)
Dawn Hochsprung was the Principal of the Sandy Hook Elementary School.  She was, according to the newsreports I've seen, an outstandingly good teacher and administrator, truly beloved by her wards and thejr parents.

I wonder if they also happened to be members of those infamous social engineers, the 'Education Mafia'?

GSC
("Still Shoveling Away!")
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Dec 16, 2012 3:25 PM:

>
> On Dec 15, 2012, at 8:42 PM, GS Chandy
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Why not simply ban ALL private ownership of
> firearms?  What purpose do they serve in a lawful
> world (apart from profits for their manufacturers and
> dealers)?
>
> Maybe your barn is lawful but the world is certainly
> not.
>
> Bob Hansen
>
Such carefully 'selective quotation' is quite typical of the falsehoods propagated by RH.  My original asked:

>>
>> I wonder:  Would effective gun control laws be
>> considered to be "unacceptable social engineering"?
>>
>> [I for one would wonder why Japan even allows  the
>> possession of ANY firearms at all (shotguns and such
>> even under its severely restrictive laws).  Why not
>> simply ban ALL private ownership of firearms?  What
>> purpose do they serve in a lawful world (apart from
>> profits for their manufacturers and dealers)?  
>>
>> [Why not work towards creating a world that is
>> generally  law-abiding instead of generally lawless,
>> which seems to be the case today.  Ah yes, would that
>> be considered to be 'social engineering' by some?]
>>
I strongly recommend that RH (if he is 'scientifically inclined' as he touts himself to be) should take the small trouble to read one or a few of the MANY sound references available dealing with the matter of "How to Quote" - e.g.:

- -- http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_quoting.html

- -- https://ilrb.cf.ac.uk/citingreferences/tutorial/quotation2.html

(There are some MMMMMillions of links available).

GSC
("Still Shoveling Away!")
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Louis Talman
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:42:15 -0700, GS Chandy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> [Why not work towards creating a world that is generally  law-abiding  
> instead of generally lawless, which seems to be the case today.  Ah yes,  
> would that be considered to be 'social engineering' by some?]

Aspiring to such a world is admirable.

Working toward such a world might even be thought saintly.

Believing that such a world can come to be is, quite simply, naiveté.

No schema for society that is based upon a change in human nature can ever  
be successful.

- --Lou Talman

   Department of Mathematical & Computer Sciences
   Metropolitan State University of Denver
   <http://rowdy.msudenver.edu/~talmanl>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Bishop, Wayne-2
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
You might start by recognizing that this country is a constitutional representative democracy that actually with respect to its constitution instead of changing it to meet popular demands of the moment or ignored with impunity as is common in some countries.  Amending it is possible but designed to be difficult.  Our Bill of Rights constitutes the first 10 amendments that, by contrast, were approved very quickly because they were part of a gentleman's agreement in order to persuade some reluctant states to adopt the much stronger federal Constitution to compensate for the failures of the original Articles of Confederacy.  One of the earliest, the 2nd in fact, guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Because of a preliminary clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," there were decades of discussion as to whether or not that preamble negated the clear statement.  In other words, there were decades of calls for the Supreme Court to rule the Constitution to be unconstitutional, for some of us conservatives, a bit of overreach.  For decades, the Supreme Court avoided taking up the issue but it finally did and ruled that the Constitution means what it says.  In spite of that constitutional mandate, there long have been infringements, private ownership of nuclear weapons perhaps, but they are ignored and few of us object.  Fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns do fall into that category although far less clear-cut.  I assume they have been challenged and allowed but I am no source of such detail.  What is clear is that small arms, including scary looking look-alikes of military weapons are legal.  There is precedent for amendments that repeal earlier amendments so feel free to initiate such an effort.  My guess is that your success will be equally likely as your system-less system for revising public education in the US but feel free to try.

Given the availability of firearms in our society, how different might have been the reduction of level of this tragedy had that unfortunate principal had in her possession and been trained to use one of her own?  Although seldom reported, the factor of crimes that are commenced but not consummated because the presence of firearms but never reported over gun related crimes is huge.  As recommended reading you might try More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott for a data-based perspective on the issue.

Paul Tanner's model country is Norway with total population less than half that of my LA Basin,. Try a little arithmetic extrapolating from the 76 deaths from the dual tragedies last year where none of the citizens - especially a few people in charge on that island - to the population of the US and see if a gun-free society is inherently more secure even in a country without our large and, in some portions of it, violence prone inner-city ghettos.

Wayne

At 09:21 AM 12/16/2012, GS Chandy wrote:
Further my post dated  Dec 16, 2012 7:12 AM:

"Authorities have released the names of the victims in the Connecticut school shootings".  Here's a link to a news story proving a link to the names of both children and teachers:
http://news.msn.com/us/names-of-victims-in-connecticut-shooting-released .

It may be worth highlighting the names of two of the victims:
- -- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female (age 27)
Victoria Soto, a teacher for Grade I at the school, died (according to the newsreports I've seen) because she put herself in the way of the gunman's bullets to protect the children in her charge.

- -- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female (age 47)
Dawn Hochsprung was the Principal of the Sandy Hook Elementary School.  She was, according to the newsreports I've seen, an outstandingly good teacher and administrator, truly beloved by her wards and thejr parents.

I wonder if they also happened to be members of those infamous social engineers, the 'Education Mafia'?

GSC
("Still Shoveling Away!")

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Jeff Bishop
I agree with all of my dad's points, save one.  Restrictions on nuclear weapons are, in my opinion, not infringements.  For one thing, nukes are not weapons individuals can bear, so they are arguably not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.  For another, the notion that anything burdening a right to the slightest degree "infringes" it depends on an anachronistic definition of "infringe."  Today, we often use the word "infringe," usually together with the particle "on," to include anything and everything that steps on anyone's toes to the slightest degree.  But the preferred 18th Century definition of "infringe" was much stronger than that, basically a synonym for "break" or "destroy" (cf. Latin infringere).  By that definition, outright bans in Washington, D.C. and Chicago clearly infringed the right to keep arms; if a total ban doesn't "infringe," what does?  Similarly, the Seventh Circuit ruled last week that Illinois's total ban on open or concealed carry infringes the right to bear them.  But anything short of that is, at least, debatable.  And the focus on that debate should be about whether a given restriction does or does not infringe - not whether it's OK to infringe a little bit.


On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Wayne Bishop <[hidden email]> wrote:
You might start by recognizing that this country is a constitutional representative democracy that actually with respect to its constitution instead of changing it to meet popular demands of the moment or ignored with impunity as is common in some countries.  Amending it is possible but designed to be difficult.  Our Bill of Rights constitutes the first 10 amendments that, by contrast, were approved very quickly because they were part of a gentleman's agreement in order to persuade some reluctant states to adopt the much stronger federal Constitution to compensate for the failures of the original Articles of Confederacy.  One of the earliest, the 2nd in fact, guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Because of a preliminary clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," there were decades of discussion as to whether or not that preamble negated the clear statement.  In other words, there were decades of calls for the Supreme Court to rule the Constitution to be unconstitutional, for some of us conservatives, a bit of overreach.  For decades, the Supreme Court avoided taking up the issue but it finally did and ruled that the Constitution means what it says.  In spite of that constitutional mandate, there long have been infringements, private ownership of nuclear weapons perhaps, but they are ignored and few of us object.  Fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns do fall into that category although far less clear-cut.  I assume they have been challenged and allowed but I am no source of such detail.  What is clear is that small arms, including scary looking look-alikes of military weapons are legal.  There is precedent for amendments that repeal earlier amendments so feel free to initiate such an effort.  My guess is that your success will be equally likely as your system-less system for revising public education in the US but feel free to try.

Given the availability of firearms in our society, how different might have been the reduction of level of this tragedy had that unfortunate principal had in her possession and been trained to use one of her own?  Although seldom reported, the factor of crimes that are commenced but not consummated because the presence of firearms but never reported over gun related crimes is huge.  As recommended reading you might try More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott for a data-based perspective on the issue.

Paul Tanner's model country is Norway with total population less than half that of my LA Basin,. Try a little arithmetic extrapolating from the 76 deaths from the dual tragedies last year where none of the citizens - especially a few people in charge on that island - to the population of the US and see if a gun-free society is inherently more secure even in a country without our large and, in some portions of it, violence prone inner-city ghettos.

Wayne

At 09:21 AM 12/16/2012, GS Chandy wrote:
Further my post dated  Dec 16, 2012 7:12 AM:

"Authorities have released the names of the victims in the Connecticut school shootings".  Here's a link to a news story proving a link to the names of both children and teachers:
http://news.msn.com/us/names-of-victims-in-connecticut-shooting-released .

It may be worth highlighting the names of two of the victims:
- -- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female (age 27)
Victoria Soto, a teacher for Grade I at the school, died (according to the newsreports I've seen) because she put herself in the way of the gunman's bullets to protect the children in her charge.

- -- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female (age 47)
Dawn Hochsprung was the Principal of the Sandy Hook Elementary School.  She was, according to the newsreports I've seen, an outstandingly good teacher and administrator, truly beloved by her wards and thejr parents.

I wonder if they also happened to be members of those infamous social engineers, the 'Education Mafia'?

GSC
("Still Shoveling Away!")


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

kirby urner-4
I've been looking at this issue with regard to Codes of Conduct.  These come in many flavors:  for companies, for conferences, for students and universities.

Corporations

Many corporations explicitly forbid carrying a firearm onto the premises.  Sometimes there's contention w/r to the parking lot and whether a personal vehicle should be considered a permitted place to store one's gun while working.  Some companies ban this practice saying the parking lot is theirs and their policy extends to all of their properties.  Exceptions are made only for security guards, police etc.

http://www.pgecorp.com/aboutus/corp_gov/coce/employee_conduct_standards.shtml#1g

Universities

Student codes of conduct routinely ban firearms from campus, as well as BB guns, pellet guns, air guns, paintball guns.  They may likewise ban intoxicants, pets, appliances above a certain wattage etc.

http://www.uakron.edu/sja/code-of-conduct.dot

Conferences

Conferences currently seem the most loose as their codes of conduct tend to focus on anti-harassment issues and keeping conversations civil.  Typical of conference codes of conduct:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/06/26/this-is-how-its-done-american-atheists-announces-code-of-conduct-for-conferences/

Note:  no mention of firearms. 

Clearly a conference hosted by a university or company would not be allowed to circumvent the code of that institution, or would it?  If an outside groups rents space at a college or university during the summer, does the student code of conduct apply to them?  If a company donates space to a non-profit for a meeting, can it enforce a no-carry rule even in a state that permits carrying?

Restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone (so says the sign). 

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is common. 

So what about "Got a gun?  Keep out.  Private Property." 

Can you post that on a hotel or restaurant door?  There seems to be some consensus, among USA citizens at least, that such signs may be safely (legally) ignored, at least in states that permit open or concealed carrying.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-276747.html

The issue is gripping many in the USA not just because of school shootings (which have been many) but because of the new generation of "stand your ground" laws, which appear to make it easier to claim self defense even when it turns out the only person with a gun at the scene considered themselves a potential victim, while the person ending up dead was not carrying a weapon ("how was I supposed to know?").

These issues are germane in that the Python Software Foundation has been developing its code of conduct for its international conferences.  Obviously "one size fits all" need not be a goal. 

We have gotten as far as stipulating that for PSF to be involved in a supportive role, *some* code of conduct needs to be on the books, but the details may be left to the locale (and need not be in the English language, though translations would make sense if the conference is truly international).

Here's the US Pycon code of conduct (current version).  Nothing about guns though.  More like the Atheist thing.

https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/

Kirby

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Robert Hansen
In reply to this post by Jeff Bishop

On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:36 PM, Jeff Bishop <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree with all of my dad's points, save one.  Restrictions on nuclear weapons are, in my opinion, not infringements.  For one thing, nukes are not weapons individuals can bear, so they are arguably not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I don't think explosives was ever a consideration though ammunition does require powder. In my opinion, arms obviously meant guns and has always meant guns.

People think this is new. Sadly, it isn't. In 1937 a monster every bit the equal to this one blew up an elementary school in Bath Michigan, killing 38 children.


In Japan and China they use knives.

If it isn't guns, bombs, knives or poison then these monsters just use their bare hands and strangle them, one at a time.

Obama spoke tonight...

"We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage?" Obama said.  That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year, after year, after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

Yeah, unfortunately, this is the price we pay for freedom. We can't even keep gang members off the street. How the hell are we going to put enough "odd" people under surveillance just hoping to stop the rarest of sickos like this monster?

Considering the number of gun deaths in Illinois, I wasn't even aware they had a ban on guns. More people are murdered in Chicago, with guns, than troops dying in Afghanistan. A lot more. What kind of gun ban is that?

Just like education, if we want to understand how other countries achieve lower murder rates (there actually isn't that many of them) then go examine them to see how they achieve lower murder rates. I don't think it hinges on a lack of guns, though I could see the lack of interest in guns (in those countries) hinging on not being worried as much about being killed.

Bob Hansen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Lou Talman posted Dec 17, 2012 1:57 AM:

>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:42:15 -0700, GS Chandy
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > [Why not work towards creating a world that is
> generally  law-abiding  
> > instead of generally lawless, which seems to be the
> case today.  Ah yes,  
> > would that be considered to be 'social engineering'
> by some?]
>
> Aspiring to such a world is admirable.
>
> Working toward such a world might even be thought
> saintly.
>
I would like to sugest that both "aspiring to" create a generally law-abiding world (instead of a generally lawless one*) and "working towards" that end are not "saintly" at all - they are 'necessary conditions' (if we are to hope that we can indeed improve matters).  They clearly are not 'sufficient conditions'.
>  
> Believing that such a world can come to be is, quite
> simply, naiveté.
>
Surely one can 'work towards' creating a more 'generally law-abiding world' without necessarily believing that one will achieve a 'perfectly law-abiding one'. (I personally do not believe in the possibility of 'perfection' of human beings or human institutions and instruments - though I do believe it may be possible to 'improve' human institutions and instruments very significantly indeed). The following are the only certainties:

- -- Improvement will not take place unless there are there are people actively working towards such improvement.

- -- People will not actively work towards improvement unless they believe there is some hope (however small that may be) of succcess.  (There are a great number of people actively working towards improvement: witness, for example, the sizable numbers of 'non-profit organizations' - a number of them very genuine and honest - thus hopefully working towards precisely such 'improvement').

In general - based on my understanding of history (and do feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken) - I do believe the world is generally 'somewhat more' law-abiding today than it was:

i) five thousand years ago;

ii) a thousand years ago;

ii) five hundred years ago;

iii) (perhaps) even two hundred years ago (see below).  

That is the kind of time-frame it may take to make meaningful societal change.  

I do understand, for instance, that the US (even in Texas!) may be somewhat more 'generally law-abiding' today than it was in the days of the 'wild West' of the cowboy movies and books - and that was just about a hundred-and-fifty years ago, I believe!  

There have of course been quite severe blips during, for instance, the time of Hitler (worldwide) and more recently during the USA's Vietnam war; Pol Pot's time (in SE Asia only); the USA's Iraq war - though it is justifiably argued that that war was launched against a despicable regime.  But those are the 'blips', to which human history is subject.  Every now and then, we in India do suffer such 'blips' quite severely, for instance when Hindu-Muslim animosity rises to the fore of our societal concerns.  After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, there was a sizable 'blip' which led to the massacre of several thousand Sikhs in Delhi alone.

iv) I believe that such changes (as 'moving towards a generally more law-abiding world') has never occurred in the past in much shorter periods of time than several decades or even much longer, perhaps centuries. [And a lot of things do need to come together for such change to occur].

However, I believe it may be possible to speed up that 'time-frame for change' quite significantly.  Societal change can, I believe, take place in just 5-20 years - see, for instance, the PowerPoint presentation attached with my post at the thread "Democracy: can we achieve it?" - http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536).  And there **may be** some [very small] quantum of 'change in human nature' accompanying such societal change - though doubtless much of such change would have to be attributed to the change of societal structures (such as laws) that prevent or hinder individuals/groups from indulging themselves in 'uncivilized' behavior.
>
> No schema for society that is based upon a change in
> human nature can ever be successful.
>
I believe you are seriously mistaken (if you are claiming that there can be "no change in human nature").  There has clearly been some 'change in human nature' since, for instance, the days of the Inquisition, of Galileo.  

A good part of the change is, I agree, occasioned by the development/evolution of societal structures.  Probably only the smaller portion of change can be attributed to a real change in human nature per se.    

But consider this as a tentative suggestion:  perhaps there has indeed been some change in human nature since the days of the 'Wild West', even!

I am NOT claiming that we can construct "schema for society based on a change in human nature".  (However, I do believe in the 'possibility' of change in some aspects of human nature - though I must emphasize that I'm not in any way advocating Haim's naive charges of 'social engineering'!)

May I observe that Jesus Christ more than 2000 years ago had put forth the quite admirable suggestion:

"Do thou unto others as thou woulds't have others do unto thee" (words/ideas to that effect).  Now, that was surely a call "to change human nature"!

It is quite evident, I agree, that the suggestion has not been understood/ implemented by human beings at large even today, 2000-odd years later (and it's been understood least of all in the so-called 'Christian nations').

Thus, Jesus Christ was, probably, somewhat 'naive'. (I do believe, however, that his 'naivete' should actually be considered quite admirable - and it is based on a very profound understanding of what has come to be known as 'social science').  

As noted, that saw is based on a very sound understanding of social science at a quite profound level.  

Quite recently, Gandhi in India made practical 'political application' of at least some parts of Jesus' teaching to rouse his people to drive the British rulers out of India.  (It is worth observing as a 'side-bar' that Gandhi's favorite song, alongside some Vedic/Hindu chants, was the Christian hymn "Lead, Kindly Light"!!!)

And quite some time before Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha arrived at an even more profound understanding of 'human nature' and the place of humans in the world.  I entirely agree that we've not understood those lessons at all in the context of our societal lives.  We may not ever achieve adequate understanding.

GSC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

GS Chandy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Wayne Bishop posted Dec 17, 2012 7:47 AM (GSC's response at end):
>
> You might start by recognizing that this country is a constitutional representative democracy that actually with respect to its constitution instead of changing it to meet popular demands of the moment or ignored with impunity as is common in some countries.  Amending it is possible but designed to be difficult.  Our Bill of Rights constitutes the first 10 amendments that, by contrast, were approved very quickly because they were part of a gentleman's agreement in order to persuade some reluctant states to adopt the much stronger federal Constitution to compensate for the failures of the original Articles of Confederacy.  One of the earliest, the 2nd in fact, guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

>Because of a preliminary clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," there were decades of discussion as to whether or not that preamble negated the clear statement.  In other words, there were decades of calls for the Supreme Court to rule the Constitution to be unconstitutional, for some of us conservatives, a bit of overreach.  For decades, the Supreme Court avoided taking up the issue but it finally did and ruled that the Constitution means what it says.  In spite of that constitutional mandate, there long have been infringements, private ownership of nuclear weapons perhaps, but they are ignored and few of us object.  Fully automatic machine guns and sawed-off shotguns do fall into that category although far less clear-cut.  I assume they have been challenged and allowed but I am no source of such detail.  What is clear is that small arms, including scary looking look-alikes of military weapons are legal.  There is precedent for!
  amendments that repeal earlier amendments so feel free to initiate such an effort.  My guess is that your success will be equally likely as your system-less system for revising public education in the US but feel free to try.

>Given the availability of firearms in our society, how different might have been the reduction of level of this tragedy had that unfortunate principal had in her possession and been trained to use one of her own?  Although seldom reported, the factor of crimes that are commenced but not consummated because the presence of firearms but never reported over gun related crimes is huge.  As recommended reading you might try More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott for a data-based perspective on the issue.

>Paul Tanner's model country is Norway with total population less than half that of my LA Basin,. Try a little arithmetic extrapolating from the 76 deaths from the dual tragedies last year where none of the citizens - especially a few people in charge on that island - to the population of the US and see if a gun-free society is inherently more secure even in a country without our large and, in some portions of it, violence prone inner-city ghettos.

>Wayne

>At 09:21 AM 12/16/2012, GS Chandy wrote:
>> Further my post dated  Dec 16, 2012 7:12 AM:
>
>> "Authorities have released the names of the victims in the Connecticut school shootings".  Here's a link to a news story proving a link to the names of both children and teachers:
>> http://news.msn.com/us/names-of-victims-in-connecticut-shooting-released .
>
>> It may be worth highlighting the names of two of the victims:
>> - -- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female (age 27)
>> Victoria Soto, a teacher for Grade I at the school, died (according to the newsreports I've seen) because she put herself in the way of the gunman's bullets to protect the children in her charge.
>
>> - -- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female (age 47)
>> Dawn Hochsprung was the Principal of the Sandy Hook Elementary School.  She was, according to the newsreports I've seen, an outstandingly good teacher and administrator, truly beloved by her wards and thejr parents.
>
>> I wonder if they also happened to be members of those infamous social engineers, the 'Education Mafia'?
>
>> GSC
>> ("Still Shoveling Away!")
>>
I observe that NONE of Professor Bishop's suggestions or claims (that I should "start by recognizing" that the USA is a "constitutional democracy", etc, etc, etc [see above]), is actually a response to anything I had written.

I had not extolled Norway's performance in this respect - with the 76 murders by Anders Breivig that Professor Bishop has quoted - as anything that the USA should aspire to.  Extrapolating that set of murders is not the issue at all.

This is typical.

GSC
("Still Shoveling Away!")
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Greg Goodknight
In reply to this post by kirby urner-4
At the same time Virginia Tech was mourning their dead within their gun
free zones, the University of Utah was trying to decide if they should
give freshmen the power to demand a roommate that didn't have a
concealed weapons permit who would be storing their weapon in their
shared room, because the Utah Supreme Court decided that UU couldn't ban
students legally carrying concealed or having weapons in their rooms.
Personally, I hope such freshmen were granted that power to have gun
free living quarters while noting there haven't been any mass shootings
at UU.

The Colorado theater shooter chose not to shoot up his UC (the state
Supremes overturned the ban on concealed carry at the university last
March) and instead chose a mall theater that banned concealed weapons.
They had every right to do so, but it turns out a sociopath determined
to kill a lot of people generally don't follow those rules.

A recent Oregon mall shooting ended quickly, apparently because a young
man legally carrying concealed drew his weapon and aimed at the gunman,
who noted this, withdrew into a store and shot himself. The young man
carrying legally and ethically didn't shoot because there was an
innocent behind the gunman that would have been hit had his aim been
faulty, but it just took the threat to end the carnage.

At some point it might be reasonable to note that such codes of conduct
only cover people who have not made a conscious decision to go out in a
blaze of glory as a homicidal maniac and those who do usually keep at it
until they're through, usually when armed good guys show up.

- -Greg

On 12/16/2012 07:27 PM, kirby urner wrote:

> I've been looking at this issue with regard to Codes of Conduct.  
> These come in many flavors:  for companies, for conferences, for
> students and universities.
>
> Corporations
>
> Many corporations explicitly forbid carrying a firearm onto the
> premises.  Sometimes there's contention w/r to the parking lot and
> whether a personal vehicle should be considered a permitted place to
> store one's gun while working.  Some companies ban this practice
> saying the parking lot is theirs and their policy extends to all of
> their properties.  Exceptions are made only for security guards,
> police etc.
>
> http://www.pgecorp.com/aboutus/corp_gov/coce/employee_conduct_standards.shtml#1g
>
> Universities
>
> Student codes of conduct routinely ban firearms from campus, as well
> as BB guns, pellet guns, air guns, paintball guns.  They may likewise
> ban intoxicants, pets, appliances above a certain wattage etc.
>
> http://www.uakron.edu/sja/code-of-conduct.dot
>
> Conferences
>
> Conferences currently seem the most loose as their codes of conduct
> tend to focus on anti-harassment issues and keeping conversations
> civil.  Typical of conference codes of conduct:
>
> http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/06/26/this-is-how-its-done-american-atheists-announces-code-of-conduct-for-conferences/
>
> Note:  no mention of firearms.
>
> Clearly a conference hosted by a university or company would not be
> allowed to circumvent the code of that institution, or would it?  If
> an outside groups rents space at a college or university during the
> summer, does the student code of conduct apply to them?  If a company
> donates space to a non-profit for a meeting, can it enforce a no-carry
> rule even in a state that permits carrying?
>
> Restaurants reserve the right to refuse service to anyone (so says the
> sign).
>
> "No shirt, no shoes, no service" is common.
>
> So what about "Got a gun?  Keep out.  Private Property."
>
> Can you post that on a hotel or restaurant door?  There seems to be
> some consensus, among USA citizens at least, that such signs may be
> safely (legally) ignored, at least in states that permit open or
> concealed carrying.
>
> http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-276747.html
>
> The issue is gripping many in the USA not just because of school
> shootings (which have been many) but because of the new generation of
> "stand your ground" laws, which appear to make it easier to claim self
> defense even when it turns out the only person with a gun at the scene
> considered themselves a potential victim, while the person ending up
> dead was not carrying a weapon ("how was I supposed to know?").
>
> These issues are germane in that the Python Software Foundation has
> been developing its code of conduct for its international
> conferences.  Obviously "one size fits all" need not be a goal.
>
> We have gotten as far as stipulating that for PSF to be involved in a
> supportive role, *some* code of conduct needs to be on the books, but
> the details may be left to the locale (and need not be in the English
> language, though translations would make sense if the conference is
> truly international).
>
> Here's the US Pycon code of conduct (current version).  Nothing about
> guns though.  More like the Atheist thing.
>
> https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/
>
> Kirby
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Bishop, Wayne-2
In reply to this post by Robert Hansen
If my understanding is correct (I've never looked it up), Washington DC is even worse than Chicago; more restrictive gun laws along with more per capita gun fatalities.

On the issue of gun possession correlating well with gun violence, Switzerland is the classic example:
"… where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime."
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
The "almost" refers to membership in the militia but that does include nearly every adult male within the age-span of our favorite perpetrators here.  The rest of the article - even the rest of the sentence - adds caveats but the bottom line is that it is culture, not gun ownership, that spawns outrageous use of firearms.  In another culture, think "honor" killings of a female member of one's own family.  No guns required; a knife will do nicely.

Wayne

At 08:23 PM 12/16/2012, Robert Hansen wrote:

On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:36 PM, Jeff Bishop <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree with all of my dad's points, save one.  Restrictions on nuclear weapons are, in my opinion, not infringements.  For one thing, nukes are not weapons individuals can bear, so they are arguably not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I don't think explosives was ever a consideration though ammunition does require powder. In my opinion, arms obviously meant guns and has always meant guns.

People think this is new. Sadly, it isn't. In 1937 a monster every bit the equal to this one blew up an elementary school in Bath Michigan, killing 38 children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

In Japan and China they use knives.

If it isn't guns, bombs, knives or poison then these monsters just use their bare hands and strangle them, one at a time.

Obama spoke tonight...

"We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage?" Obama said.  That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year, after year, after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

Yeah, unfortunately, this is the price we pay for freedom. We can't even keep gang members off the street. How the hell are we going to put enough "odd" people under surveillance just hoping to stop the rarest of sickos like this monster?

Considering the number of gun deaths in Illinois, I wasn't even aware they had a ban on guns. More people are murdered in Chicago, with guns, than troops dying in Afghanistan. A lot more. What kind of gun ban is that?

Just like education, if we want to understand how other countries achieve lower murder rates (there actually isn't that many of them) then go examine them to see how they achieve lower murder rates. I don't think it hinges on a lack of guns, though I could see the lack of interest in guns (in those countries) hinging on not being worried as much about being killed.

Bob Hansen

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Gary Tupper
In reply to this post by Robert Hansen
Regrettably, I believe Rob, Jeff & Wayne reflect the common American's position: in the same way that the price of being  Scandinavian is high taxes; the price of being Haitian is poverty etc, the price of being American is  acceptance of violence.

I doubt that anything will really change after the vigils, candles & hand-wringing is over.

Gary Tupper

On 12/16/2012 8:23 PM, Robert Hansen wrote:

On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:36 PM, Jeff Bishop <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree with all of my dad's points, save one.  Restrictions on nuclear weapons are, in my opinion, not infringements.  For one thing, nukes are not weapons individuals can bear, so they are arguably not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I don't think explosives was ever a consideration though ammunition does require powder. In my opinion, arms obviously meant guns and has always meant guns.

People think this is new. Sadly, it isn't. In 1937 a monster every bit the equal to this one blew up an elementary school in Bath Michigan, killing 38 children.


In Japan and China they use knives.

If it isn't guns, bombs, knives or poison then these monsters just use their bare hands and strangle them, one at a time.

Obama spoke tonight...

"We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage?" Obama said.  That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year, after year, after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

Yeah, unfortunately, this is the price we pay for freedom. We can't even keep gang members off the street. How the hell are we going to put enough "odd" people under surveillance just hoping to stop the rarest of sickos like this monster?

Considering the number of gun deaths in Illinois, I wasn't even aware they had a ban on guns. More people are murdered in Chicago, with guns, than troops dying in Afghanistan. A lot more. What kind of gun ban is that?

Just like education, if we want to understand how other countries achieve lower murder rates (there actually isn't that many of them) then go examine them to see how they achieve lower murder rates. I don't think it hinges on a lack of guns, though I could see the lack of interest in guns (in those countries) hinging on not being worried as much about being killed.

Bob Hansen

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

casestudy
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
A Case Study is not a dormant entity, not a history that can be read and forgotten; it is about learning, about knowledge, about implementation and overall its an experience of value addition.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Jeff Bishop
In reply to this post by Gary Tupper
Unless, of course, your definition of Scandinavia includes Finland or Norway, in which case the price of being Scandinavian is both high taxes and acceptance of mass public shootings on a level that makes Americans blush.  You're probably right that nothing will change.  On the mental health side, that's unfortunate.  On the gun rights side, nothing should change, except to get rid of more "gun-free zones," where every mass public shooting save one has occurred. And that one is the exception that proves the rule; Jared Loughner didn't select a Safeway lot because he thought it was teh easiest place to kill as many people as possible.  He selected it because he was after a single individual, Congresswoman Giffords, who happened to be there.  What was intended as an individual assassination only turned to a spree because, laws aside, no one else at the scene happened to be armed.  


On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Gary Tupper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Regrettably, I believe Rob, Jeff & Wayne reflect the common American's position: in the same way that the price of being  Scandinavian is high taxes; the price of being Haitian is poverty etc, the price of being American is  acceptance of violence.

I doubt that anything will really change after the vigils, candles & hand-wringing is over.

Gary Tupper


On 12/16/2012 8:23 PM, Robert Hansen wrote:

On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:36 PM, Jeff Bishop <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree with all of my dad's points, save one.  Restrictions on nuclear weapons are, in my opinion, not infringements.  For one thing, nukes are not weapons individuals can bear, so they are arguably not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I don't think explosives was ever a consideration though ammunition does require powder. In my opinion, arms obviously meant guns and has always meant guns.

People think this is new. Sadly, it isn't. In 1937 a monster every bit the equal to this one blew up an elementary school in Bath Michigan, killing 38 children.


In Japan and China they use knives.

If it isn't guns, bombs, knives or poison then these monsters just use their bare hands and strangle them, one at a time.

Obama spoke tonight...

"We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage?" Obama said.  That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year, after year, after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"

Yeah, unfortunately, this is the price we pay for freedom. We can't even keep gang members off the street. How the hell are we going to put enough "odd" people under surveillance just hoping to stop the rarest of sickos like this monster?

Considering the number of gun deaths in Illinois, I wasn't even aware they had a ban on guns. More people are murdered in Chicago, with guns, than troops dying in Afghanistan. A lot more. What kind of gun ban is that?

Just like education, if we want to understand how other countries achieve lower murder rates (there actually isn't that many of them) then go examine them to see how they achieve lower murder rates. I don't think it hinges on a lack of guns, though I could see the lack of interest in guns (in those countries) hinging on not being worried as much about being killed.

Bob Hansen


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Robert Hansen
In reply to this post by Gary Tupper

On Dec 17, 2012, at 2:11 AM, Gary Tupper <[hidden email]> wrote:

Regrettably, I believe Rob, Jeff & Wayne reflect the common American's position: in the same way that the price of being  Scandinavian is high taxes; the price of being Haitian is poverty etc, the price of being American is  acceptance of violence.

I doubt that anything will really change after the vigils, candles & hand-wringing is over.

Not to take away from your point Gary, but we need to distinguish between violence and monsters. The horrific events in Connecticut were the result of a monster.

Bob Hansen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Great question, Wayne. Try this on for size: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm

Don't hurt yourself when your brain shuts down to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?

Michael Paul Goldenberg
In reply to this post by GS Chandy
"Infringe" this, Jeff. The rotten apple doesn't fall far from the twisted tree, does it?

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2012/12/welcome-to-amerigun.html?m=1
12345