Thursday, February 14, 2013
Should Schools Have Armed Security?
So in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA came under a lot of heat for proposing that the public schools have armed security in them. The level of criticism leveled I think showed how a lot of the people who were calling for both sides to come together and have a meaningful discussion on the issue were not really serious about this. The real irony has been those who claimed that the NRA and Wayne LaPierre had lost credibility on the issue for proposing this, yet who considered themselves credible on the subject as their proposed solution is the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban."
A few points I wanted to make on this proposal of the NRA's though:
1) Many of the critics say that the NRA's proposed solution to guns in the schools is more guns. That the NRA's solution is for there to be armed guards in the schools who will shoot it out with the gunmen in such events among the children, and thus the NRA loses credibility. Their (the critics) solution is instead to get the guns out of the hands of the shooters in the first place. Well the the problem with this is that for one, it's virtually impossible to get the guns out of the hands of the shooters. Even if we banned the further sale and manufacture of all guns in this country, there's millions out there in circulation right now (and a whole lot of additional ones have flowed out with the panic buying that has occurred in the wake of the shooting). So it would be virtually impossible to stop the shooters from having guns at any point in the near-term.
But let's say that we repealed the Second Amendment and then went on acquiring all the guns in circulation. Provided that this could even be done, it would likely be a multi-decade process to get all the guns out of circulation. So even if one would prefer to to do this, banning all guns, I would think that while that was being done, it would make sense possibly to put armed security into the schools.
So even if one disagrees with the NRA's proposal as an end solution, it would still make sense as a near-term temporary solution for some decades until all the guns could be rid from society. The gun-grabbers' plan would involve a period of leaving the schools unsecured for the years to decades it would take to get all the guns out of circulation.
2) Some say that the children, even if protected by armed security, will not be any safer when outside of the school in say a supermarket or a mall (Chris Wallace said this to Wayne LaPierre in his interview with him on Fox News Sunday). Well to this I say, if that's the line of reasoning, then we might as well get rid of the special standards for engineering and construction that we have for school buses. Because it makes no sense to require those buses to be built to any special standards because the children are not going to be secured by those standards when they are riding in vehicles that are not school buses (like their parents' car/minivan/SUV). And we may as well also get rid of the security in the IRS buildings, because surely the IRS employees are not safe when out and about either.
The reason for securing these buildings and vehicles is because they hold a large number of a certain type of personnel that needs protection. In the case of an IRS building, you have a large number of IRS employees all concentrated together in one building. Such buildings are thus ripe targets for those who might want to harm IRS employees. Sure, they could try to go after individual employees outside of the building, but there are a lot who would just want to rage against the IRS itself and mass-kill IRs employees. And if the whole building is just left wide open for someone to just walk in, well that's asking for an attack at some point.
With a schoolbus, you have a vehicle that carries a large number of children. If something bad happens to the bus, thus a large number of children could either be injured and/or killed. So we require the buses to be constructed to special standards. With a school, you have what is a warehouse filled with children for a good portion of the day. Such a building is a major target for anyone intent on slaughtering children. Such a person is likely not going to go to a mall or a supermarket. Yes, individual children will be at more risk, but only to a general mass-shooter who wants to shoot at anybody or to someone after a specific child. Regarding a person intent specifically on slaughtering children in large numbers, they are going to head to the building filled with children, preferably one labeled as a "Gun Free Zone." And even if they just want to shoot up a large number of people period, adults or children, schools are ripe targets for this.
So the NRA's suggestion is, just like with the schoolbuses and IRS buildings, we should increase the security of the schools. It is not a fail-safe solution, but one that can help prevent future mass shootings. It is often pointed out that Columbine had security and that didn't stop the shooters. But a third of the schools in the country already have armed security, so it must work to some degree as a form of deterrant, or there would be no point in investing money in it. The amount of security return the security provides must be worth the cost of investing money in it, or I doubt the schools would continue to do so.
A few points I wanted to make on this proposal of the NRA's though:
1) Many of the critics say that the NRA's proposed solution to guns in the schools is more guns. That the NRA's solution is for there to be armed guards in the schools who will shoot it out with the gunmen in such events among the children, and thus the NRA loses credibility. Their (the critics) solution is instead to get the guns out of the hands of the shooters in the first place. Well the the problem with this is that for one, it's virtually impossible to get the guns out of the hands of the shooters. Even if we banned the further sale and manufacture of all guns in this country, there's millions out there in circulation right now (and a whole lot of additional ones have flowed out with the panic buying that has occurred in the wake of the shooting). So it would be virtually impossible to stop the shooters from having guns at any point in the near-term.
But let's say that we repealed the Second Amendment and then went on acquiring all the guns in circulation. Provided that this could even be done, it would likely be a multi-decade process to get all the guns out of circulation. So even if one would prefer to to do this, banning all guns, I would think that while that was being done, it would make sense possibly to put armed security into the schools.
So even if one disagrees with the NRA's proposal as an end solution, it would still make sense as a near-term temporary solution for some decades until all the guns could be rid from society. The gun-grabbers' plan would involve a period of leaving the schools unsecured for the years to decades it would take to get all the guns out of circulation.
2) Some say that the children, even if protected by armed security, will not be any safer when outside of the school in say a supermarket or a mall (Chris Wallace said this to Wayne LaPierre in his interview with him on Fox News Sunday). Well to this I say, if that's the line of reasoning, then we might as well get rid of the special standards for engineering and construction that we have for school buses. Because it makes no sense to require those buses to be built to any special standards because the children are not going to be secured by those standards when they are riding in vehicles that are not school buses (like their parents' car/minivan/SUV). And we may as well also get rid of the security in the IRS buildings, because surely the IRS employees are not safe when out and about either.
The reason for securing these buildings and vehicles is because they hold a large number of a certain type of personnel that needs protection. In the case of an IRS building, you have a large number of IRS employees all concentrated together in one building. Such buildings are thus ripe targets for those who might want to harm IRS employees. Sure, they could try to go after individual employees outside of the building, but there are a lot who would just want to rage against the IRS itself and mass-kill IRs employees. And if the whole building is just left wide open for someone to just walk in, well that's asking for an attack at some point.
With a schoolbus, you have a vehicle that carries a large number of children. If something bad happens to the bus, thus a large number of children could either be injured and/or killed. So we require the buses to be constructed to special standards. With a school, you have what is a warehouse filled with children for a good portion of the day. Such a building is a major target for anyone intent on slaughtering children. Such a person is likely not going to go to a mall or a supermarket. Yes, individual children will be at more risk, but only to a general mass-shooter who wants to shoot at anybody or to someone after a specific child. Regarding a person intent specifically on slaughtering children in large numbers, they are going to head to the building filled with children, preferably one labeled as a "Gun Free Zone." And even if they just want to shoot up a large number of people period, adults or children, schools are ripe targets for this.
So the NRA's suggestion is, just like with the schoolbuses and IRS buildings, we should increase the security of the schools. It is not a fail-safe solution, but one that can help prevent future mass shootings. It is often pointed out that Columbine had security and that didn't stop the shooters. But a third of the schools in the country already have armed security, so it must work to some degree as a form of deterrant, or there would be no point in investing money in it. The amount of security return the security provides must be worth the cost of investing money in it, or I doubt the schools would continue to do so.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
The Founders Could Have Envisioned Repeating Arms
A repeating arm is a gun that can hold more then one round and fire round after round successively. One of the arguments often made is that the Founders, when writing the Second Amendment, could never have imagined the types of guns that we have today. While this could possibly be true with regards to machine guns, it is likely not true with regards to repeating guns. It also is a flimsy argument because if applied to the First Amendment, one could argue that the Founders could not have imagined mediums such as radio, television, the Internet, and so forth either.
One of the great misconceptions many people have however about the time period in which the Second Amendment was written is that the state-of-the-art in terms of firearms were single-shot muskets. That isn't the case. The reality is that repeating arms had been in existence already for decades at the time, it's just that they were not widespread. You had arms for example such as the Cookson repeating rifle (invented 1750) which held twelve shots and the Girandoni air rifle (invented 1779, eight years before the Constitution was written) which held twenty-two shots, that was created for use by the Austrian Army and of which one was carried by Lewis and Clarke in their expedition. So the technology existed for repeating guns, just they were not as widespread. The earliest repeating guns date all the way back to the late 1600s!
When muskets and cannon were first invented, they too were not widespread. It took improvements in the design, manufacturing, etc...of such weapons before they began to become widespread, but they eventually did. Cannon were also widespread at the time (the vast majority of cannon before and for a time after the Civil War were privately-owned---there were also privately-owned gun boats with multiple cannon). So it would have been perfectly logical to assume that as time went on, and manufacturing technology improved, that repeating guns would eventually become widely available as well, and that is exactly what happened.
Here are a few videos:
One of the great misconceptions many people have however about the time period in which the Second Amendment was written is that the state-of-the-art in terms of firearms were single-shot muskets. That isn't the case. The reality is that repeating arms had been in existence already for decades at the time, it's just that they were not widespread. You had arms for example such as the Cookson repeating rifle (invented 1750) which held twelve shots and the Girandoni air rifle (invented 1779, eight years before the Constitution was written) which held twenty-two shots, that was created for use by the Austrian Army and of which one was carried by Lewis and Clarke in their expedition. So the technology existed for repeating guns, just they were not as widespread. The earliest repeating guns date all the way back to the late 1600s!
When muskets and cannon were first invented, they too were not widespread. It took improvements in the design, manufacturing, etc...of such weapons before they began to become widespread, but they eventually did. Cannon were also widespread at the time (the vast majority of cannon before and for a time after the Civil War were privately-owned---there were also privately-owned gun boats with multiple cannon). So it would have been perfectly logical to assume that as time went on, and manufacturing technology improved, that repeating guns would eventually become widely available as well, and that is exactly what happened.
Here are a few videos:
Lawsuit Against Governor Cuomo's Gun Control Legislation
The NRA and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association are preparing to file a lawsuit against the NY SAFE Act, the gun control legislation passed by Governor Cuomo. I hope they are successful, however I have some trepidation over it if the ban is to be upheld. Some question whether the ban is constitutional because it bans a majority of hand guns due to the magazine limitation being set at seven rounds now. But I would think that it is blatantly un-Constitutional just by virtue of the fact that it bans the AR-15 rifle.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion in DC v Heller, stated that the Second Amendment is not an "unlimited right," that the government can regulate arms ownership, and that dangerous and unusual weapons can be regulated or banned. True, but the AR-15 is not a dangerous or unusual weapon. It is to the contrary a low-powered rifle that until the past few decades wasn't even taken seriously by most serious gun enthusiasts, who viewed it as nothing more then one step above being a toy. It has been on the market since 1964, and has been the best-selling rifle in this country for some years now, and a very good selling rifle in years before that, which is why so many companies manufacture AR-15 rifles nowadays. As such, there is nothing "dangerous" or "unusual" about it. It is the contrary, the epitomy of the type of gun that the Second Amendment should explicitly protect.
I wish the 2nd Amendment lawyers in this case the best of luck.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion in DC v Heller, stated that the Second Amendment is not an "unlimited right," that the government can regulate arms ownership, and that dangerous and unusual weapons can be regulated or banned. True, but the AR-15 is not a dangerous or unusual weapon. It is to the contrary a low-powered rifle that until the past few decades wasn't even taken seriously by most serious gun enthusiasts, who viewed it as nothing more then one step above being a toy. It has been on the market since 1964, and has been the best-selling rifle in this country for some years now, and a very good selling rifle in years before that, which is why so many companies manufacture AR-15 rifles nowadays. As such, there is nothing "dangerous" or "unusual" about it. It is the contrary, the epitomy of the type of gun that the Second Amendment should explicitly protect.
I wish the 2nd Amendment lawyers in this case the best of luck.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)