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'.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

First of all, it isn't a surprise search, like randomly pulling cars over on a country road and searching through them. It is a well known, publicized procedure. So, suppose it was constructed differently...

I believe you agreed it's okay for schools to have dress codes. Part of that might include how long a girl's skirt must be, at minimum. Schools can confirm compliance, either by measuring, or if the girl, while kneeling, has her skirt touch the floor. So, there can be dress codes, and there can be compliance verification.

Let's say a public school institutes a dress code that includes no metal objects as part of it. As in the skirt example, the school simply verifies compliance by electronically scanning for metal objects. If a gun or knife is found, it violates the dress code policy. If a knife, it must be removed from the premises (much as the girl in the above example must change into a more appropriate outfit.) If a gun is found, it too must be removed of course, and will (no pun intended) trigger further action.

Practical application would mean you'd want an armed guard or two near the detector to be instantly on site in case of a breach, so a killer couldn't simply run through as the detector vainly beeped.

Originally Posted by G1911

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'.

Absolutely. It's almost humorous watching politicians defend their own elaborate security details and procedures, while saying it wouldn't work for children at school.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

First of all, it isn't a surprise search, like randomly pulling cars over on a country road and searching through them. It is a well known, publicized procedure. So, suppose it was constructed differently...

I believe you agreed it's okay for schools to have dress codes. Part of that might include how long a girl's skirt must be, at minimum. Schools can confirm compliance, either by measuring, or if the girl, while kneeling, has her skirt touch the floor. So, there can be dress codes, and there can be compliance verification.

Let's say a public school institutes a dress code that includes no metal objects as part of it. As in the skirt example, the school simply verifies compliance by electronically scanning for metal objects. If a gun or knife is found, it violates the dress code policy. If a knife, it must be removed from the premises (much as the girl in the above example must change into a more appropriate outfit.) If a gun is found, it too must be removed of course, and will (no pun intended) trigger further action.

Practical application would mean you'd want an armed guard or two near the detector to be instantly on site in case of a breach, so a killer couldn't simply run through as the detector vainly beeped.





Absolutely. It's almost humorous watching politicians defend their own elaborate security details and procedures, while saying it wouldn't work for children at school.

This is from a recent study of all school shootings from 1980-2019:

“[A]rmed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present.”

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

This is from a recent study of all school shootings from 1980-2019:

“[A]rmed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present.”

Why call police then, if armed professionals are of little, or negative, help?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Why call police then, if armed professionals are of little, or negative, help?

When a shooting happens you need to roll in with force to stop him or her. A few armed guards at the school preemptively does little to help (except I suspect make everyone feel even more unsafe than they already feel).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

First of all, it isn't a surprise search, like randomly pulling cars over on a country road and searching through them. It is a well known, publicized procedure. So, suppose it was constructed differently...

I believe you agreed it's okay for schools to have dress codes. Part of that might include how long a girl's skirt must be, at minimum. Schools can confirm compliance, either by measuring, or if the girl, while kneeling, has her skirt touch the floor. So, there can be dress codes, and there can be compliance verification.

I don't think surprise is actually relevant to this. The 4th prohibits search without reasonable cause that the person being searched is guilty of a crime necessitating that search. Whether they are warned ahead of time isn't relevant to the 4th - it's not in accord either way. Just like the state saying "you have a week to turn in all your guns" wouldn't be in accord with the 2nd, notice of an impending infringement does not justify the infringement or make it legal.

I am, personally, against dress codes in schools for liberal reasons - I almost always come down in favor of the right of an individual to live life their way over a right of the state and its institutions to tell them what to do, wear, look, say, think, or behave. I think dress codes are not a constitutional issue though, and are left to the people under the 10th. I would say a school can enforce a legally valid rule it has set, to a reasonable degree. There is nothing prohibiting them from measuring a girls skirt, though as a tax payer I would question why this is what my tax dollars are paying them to do, and if I was a parent and it was my daughter, I'd have some questions for the teacher checking out skirt lengths.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Let's say a public school institutes a dress code that includes no metal objects as part of it. As in the skirt example, the school simply verifies compliance by electronically scanning for metal objects. If a gun or knife is found, it violates the dress code policy. If a knife, it must be removed from the premises (much as the girl in the above example must change into a more appropriate outfit.) If a gun is found, it too must be removed of course, and will (no pun intended) trigger further action.

I think there are some different considerations here. In the gun example, the school is being used as a trap for law enforcement to conduct mass warrantless searches to arrest people, without any reasonable cause or evidence that any person they are searching is actually guilty of anything.

It's more complicated if the school is searching for non-legal reasons; that is the school is operating as an arm of the state but not of the law. In this example though, it seems to be a veil to permit them to actually search for contraband, and turn over to the state's law enforcement arm students violating, again with no actual cause or evidence that that student was guilty. I think this violates a 4th, putting up a smokescreen doesn't change what is actually being done.

As a lover of terrible puns - well done.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Practical application would mean you'd want an armed guard or two near the detector to be instantly on site in case of a breach, so a killer couldn't simply run through as the detector vainly beeped.

I think this just shifts the scene, if anything.

The assailant has the tactical advantage - only they know what is about to ensue. An armed guard or cop sitting there running the machine poses little threat. They just shoot them first and go through, or go through a window, or shoot up the school entrance at drop off. I don't think it changes much, in these very rare mass incidents where a shooter with intent to survive comes in solely to deal as much damage as possible.

I do think it would probably reduce gang violence in troubled schools where this is a problem - where students bringing knives and guns are doing so with a very different mindset.

An armed guard would need to be around, but not just the clear first target to start the massacre. Otherwise, they don't really do much.

Originally Posted by Mark17

Absolutely. It's almost humorous watching politicians defend their own elaborate security details and procedures, while saying it wouldn't work for children at school.

The largest arms dealer in the world, surrounded by his tax-paid and well-armed shooters, telling us we don't need guns and we don't need armed protection either, rings a bit hollow. If I had 2 dozen loyal and armed men following me everywhere, I'd be willing to give up my gun too. Easy for them to say. If armed guards don't work, they can give up their own teams. If armed guards do work, then try it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Let's say a public school institutes a dress code that includes no metal objects as part of it.

That would be a very poorly thought out way to state a dress code.

It would ban
Nearly all pants - Zippers, buttons...
Nearly all belts - Buckles
many if not most Bras
Some shoes
Most work boots.
Most watches
Nearly all jewelry


Dad was in charge of my HS and both the towns Jr Highs. I found a loophole in the student handbook that basically allowed me to take a day off with little trouble.*
AS punishment, he made me swear to not tell any other students, and I had to spend a portion of my summer vacation helping rewrite the student handbook to eliminate similar loopholes.

*Absence could be excused by presenting a "note from home" I took a day off, had my younger sister write the note in front of him at the breakfast table while he laughed... Then showed the housemaster the exact rule when he refused to accept the note, saying that the note had indded come from home and that dad had seen it being written. He called dad, who skipped a school committee meeting to tell me how it was going to be. (I also heard there had been a "bit of swearing" when he found out during the call.)

[bnorth]

The Founding Fathers were sitting around a table sometime in 1776, working on the constitution. It had been a long day.
Father1: Whew! It's getting rather warm in here, isn't it?
Father2: Shall I open the window?
Father1: No, that's alright. I'll just take off my jacket, and roll up my sleeves.
Father2: Hey, that's a good idea. Why don't we include that in the constitution?
Father1: What? That we're allowed to take our jackets off and roll up our sleeves while at work?
Father2: Yeah, but that doesn't sound very smooth. How about "Everyone shall have the right to bare arms?"

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The Founding Fathers were sitting around a table sometime in 1776, working on the constitution. It had been a long day.
Father1: Whew! It's getting rather warm in here, isn't it?
Father2: Shall I open the window?
Father1: No, that's alright. I'll just take off my jacket, and roll up my sleeves.
Father2: Hey, that's a good idea. Why don't we include that in the constitution?
Father1: What? That we're allowed to take our jackets off and roll up our sleeves while at work?
Father2: Yeah, but that doesn't sound very smooth. How about "Everyone shall have the right to bare arms?"

Very interesting interpretation of the Constitution

Enjoyable read

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Very interesting interpretation of the Constitution

Enjoyable read

Well you know what they say. If you don't think about it, it makes sense.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The Founding Fathers were sitting around a table sometime in 1776, working on the constitution. It had been a long day.
Father1: Whew! It's getting rather warm in here, isn't it?
Father2: Shall I open the window?
Father1: No, that's alright. I'll just take off my jacket, and roll up my sleeves.
Father2: Hey, that's a good idea. Why don't we include that in the constitution?
Father1: What? That we're allowed to take our jackets off and roll up our sleeves while at work?
Father2: Yeah, but that doesn't sound very smooth. How about "Everyone shall have the right to bare arms?"

The next day, while they were taking a break, James Madison was using the outhouse when Thomas Jefferson accidentally walked in on him. Madison said, "Hey, I have a right to privacy....."

But for whatever reason, they decided not to include that in the Constitution.

[irv]

https://www.tiktok.com/@lexitmovemen...10508643880238

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by irv

https://www.tiktok.com/@lexitmovemen...10508643880238

can increase pay for teachers with guns.....if you ask the students like this video they will all say they feel safer with their teachers with guns

i would submit a teacher (who know their students very well) would do more to risk their lives for students than law enforcement.