Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I do disagree with you somewhat on the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To my thinking, metal detectors at the entrance to schools is reasonable, when the specific things to be seized are weapons such as guns or knives.

In fact, I would argue that metal detectors and armed guards at schools is not only more effective at preventing mass shootings, but it is also more in line with Constitutional rights.

I think it is unconstitutional, because it is a blanket search of every person who enters a building that they are forced to be at by the government. While some people with the free time can homeschool their children, attendance is effectively compulsory for most people. A search, without any specific cause to suspect the person being searched has done anything wrong, is not probable cause. There is no oath or affirmation that there is any specific reason to search them as an individual. That the search is to seize contraband found does not, I think, under the 4th justify a search in and of itself - there must be reasonable cause to suspect that person specifically actually has contraband.

A private business has great leeway to do whatever they want on their property. I am not sure it should be this way, but private property is not really held to much of a Constitutional standard.


As to whether it would work, I think yes and no. I do not think it would help in the incidents this thread has focused on. If a person is shooting up a school, who cares if the metal detector bleeps as they run through with their rifle? It might shift the scene of the massacre to the entrance instead of a classroom. It might make the person operating the metal detector the first to be shot. I don't think it really changes the broad picture.

I think it would probably help in less severe incidents, like when a 15 year old gang member keeps a Glock in his backpack in Chicago, for example. It's illegal, it's not good, they may commit a further vicim-based crime with it at some point, but they aren't coming with mass slaughter in their soul. It might help here by causing them to not bring it.

However, I don't think end result analysis is really valid, or justifies that the Constitution can be violated if one effect of violating is 'good' (i.e., if data shows X lives are saved or improved and no value is given to the rights of the people, it's good to go). Pretty much every right would have to go out the window, there is some area or facet anything can be shown to have a negative result.

Originally Posted by Mark17

The idea that background checks will prevent potential murderers from obtaining weapons is problematic several ways. If I say the guy next door seems unhinged or angry, or if I claim he said something that I interpreted as a threat, can I report that and thus take away his Constitutional right to own a gun? Can his ex-wife or ex-girlfriend?

Background checks give the power of one person's Constitutional rights over to anybody who might want to take them away, by claiming that person said something, like wanting to shoot up a movie theater, or whatever. Such a statement, unprovable either way, could go on a background check record and stay there forever.

Even if someone fails a background check, it's still possible for them to obtain guns illegally. I'll bet your average gang member didn't go through the legal process in obtaining his weapons.

I agree. This is my problem with 'red flag' laws - what this usually means in legislation is bills that strip away due process and allow claims from people the accused barely even knows to be ruled on by a Judge without the accused being involved (like my state has set up). I like due process.

It is very easy to get a gun illegally, and it is not difficult to simply make one. Even without 80%ers and 3D printing you can easily manufacture one from Home Depot. The only real challenge for those with even a little technical inclination is rifling the barrel, which is not necessary to commit short-range crime.

Originally Posted by Mark17

I'm all in favor of trying to stop bad guys from getting and owning guns, but I'm also saying that because it is difficult and sometimes impossible to know who will suddenly turn into a mass killer, it's also imperative for people to protect themselves and their kids. Hence, safety measures at schools, beginning with armed guards, same as politicians demand for themselves.

I concur completely. I don't see much good argument against the idea; it's usually the $$ grounds the left uses to object to this one. If they can afford to place entire police departments on college campuses to harass young adults for petty victimless stuff, they can put a single cop in an elementary school. Everyone wins. We'll see if it works in these incidents (I'm not saying it wouldn't help, I'm saying there's just not data at present because it is not done), it's a PR win for police departments, nobody loses.

This is one of many reasons it is clear that the agenda is more 'ban guns' than 'protect kids'.