When an NRA safety instructor accidentally shoots a student in one of his classes, is it a teachable moment about guns in America?
I am referring to an incident reported in the Orlando Sentinel in which a person attending a National Rifle Association class for applicants for concealed carry licenses was shot when his instructor's gun accidentally discharged during the class. The bullet penetrated a table before hitting the victim, who fortunately recovered from his wound.
I think it's safe to say that the NRA instructor in this case is unlikely to appear in future "I'm the NRA" promotional ads.
Here we have an individual, who the NRA itself has decided is such an expert in safe gun handling that he can teach a class in it, nevertheless accidentally discharging his weapon in a public place and wounding an innocent person. If this can happen to the instructor, what can we expect from his students, who presumably will be carrying their concealed guns on the streets?
This is hardly the first time that a highly trained gun user has accidentally shot someone. In fact the Sentinel article referred to another incident in Orlando a few years ago, in which a DEA agent shot himself in the thigh with a .40 caliber Glock pistol while talking to schoolchildren about the importance of staying away from guns. This bizarre shooting actually was captured on video. The image of all those kids in that room is chilling.
What lessons can be learned from these two disturbing incidents?
First, because of the nature of guns, accidental shootings remain a constant threat. Yes, individuals can be trained to be extremely careful around guns and most gun owners no doubt regard themselves as very safety conscious. But human beings are prone to mistakes - they can be clumsy, or distracted, or rushed, for example - and guns are sufficiently complicated mechanisms that even the slightest mistake can result in tragedy.
This is not true of other widely available products used as weapons. As the late columnist and humorist Molly Ivins once observed, "People are seldom killed while cleaning their knives." In fact, the great paradox of gun design is that guns are complicated enough to invite accidents by adults, yet simple enough to be fired by a child.
The NRA is fond of pointing to data suggesting that the rate of accidental shootings has been declining, but this is largely due to the decline in hunting, as well as the falling percentage of American households with guns, from 54% in 1977 to 33% in 2009. Even so, between 1965 and 2006, over 64,000 Americans died in unintentional shootings, more Americans than were killed in battle during those decades. For every person killed in such shootings, about thirteen are seriously wounded. The collection of accidental shootings found here makes a sobering statement.
The constant risk of an accidental shooting is not confined to the gun owner, those in his household, and those who may visit his household. Given the campaign of the "gun rights" ideologues to make it easier to carry guns in public, it is increasingly a threat to all of us. Most states that have made it easier to carry concealed weapons have no serious safety training requirements (and some states, like Arizona, have no requirement of even a license to carry a concealed weapon).
And now we have the spectacle of gun extremists carrying their handguns openly in places like Starbucks. In most states, there is no license or safety training requirement of any kind to engage in such "open carry". Apart from the growing evidence that we are allowing very dangerous people to legally carry guns in public (at least 173 homicides by concealed carry license holders since May, 2007, including 16 mass shootings), there is the less visible, but more constant threat of tragedy from a law-abiding, well-intentioned gun owner who may simply make a mistake with a gun on the street, in a coffee shop or in a public park.
When it comes to cars, we tolerate the risk of accidents because we regard automobile transportation as essential to our daily lives (though, unlike guns, we have extensive safety regulations on cars and drivers to reduce the risk of death and injury). We are told that we must similarly tolerate the risk of gun accidents because of the overriding protective benefit of guns in enabling self-defense against criminal attack.
But as to guns in the home, we know that for every time they are used in a self-defense shooting, there are four unintentional shootings (as well as seven criminal assaults and eleven attempted or completed suicides). For those who carry guns in public, the benefits are demonstrably not worth the risk. A recent study shows that individuals in actual possession of a gun are over four times more likely to be shot in an assault than persons not in possession of a gun. The research also reveals no evidence that making it easier for people to carry concealed guns reduces crime; indeed, its effect has been to increase aggravated assault.
So, yes, the accidental shooting by the NRA safety instructor provides a teachable moment. It teaches us this: the gun in the home, or in a public place, owned and carried even by a law-abiding and well-trained adult, presents a persistent risk of death and injury to the innocent. That risk is far greater than the often-claimed protective benefits of guns.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
Guns are dangerous. They kill. That is why they are valuable for defense against tyranny. He needs to read his history. America does not happen without guns.
Federal Law:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
Prev | Next
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Just one of the many state constitutions:
Illinois State Constitution, Article 12.
SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons
residing in the State except those exempted by law.
So women have a nice discrimination lawsuit against the federal gov't.
Oh, but read again, wiseguy.
You, yes you, are IN the militia, automatically, because you (presumably) are a male. Veghead, yes, but still a 'male', no matter how loose the interpretation.
This is not your "right". You are in it.
Women have not been drafted thus.
As OE said: "Well regulated is not a requirement, it is a descriptive ideal. And it does not levy a pre-condition for the possession of arms. "
Are you having reading difficulties tonight?
According to some, this sentence would mean that only engines can keep and use tools.
Others make the case that it would mean engines cannot be infringed.
Still others make an argument which means vehicles can keep and use engines.
And then there are those whose stance would mean that only vehicles can keep and use tools.
Additionally, there are those who would have us believe that people can only own and use tools if they are an engine, or are working on an engine.
All of the arguments by these people are quite incorrect.
As explained previously, the absolute phrase "A properly functioning engine being necessary to optimal gas mileage of a vehicle" does not create the right, nor does it limit or modify the right. The right exists. The absolute phrase acts adverbially and in a non-restrictive manner to give background information regarding the action of the sentence -- in this case the prohibition against infringement.
There are obviously many reasons why people would own and use tools other than working on engines or for increasing gas mileage. And there are obviously many reasons besides the upkeep of an engine or optimal mileage why the right to own and use tools would be protected.
Don't you think a grammarian has to have a historical basis for interpretation....just asking....
beagle....any interpretation of bearing arms deals with warfare, not CCW in Starbucks, so spin away....
whether it be Wills, Baron, or whomever.....
How about the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
From Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller:
"The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief)." Id at pg 3, slip opinion.
Further in the majority opinion:
"The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11". Id at slip opinion page 12.
"Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms”from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists’ Brief
18–23." Id at slip opinion page 13.
enlightened45 wrote: "any interpretation of bearing arms deals with warfare, not CCW in Starbucks, so spin away...."
So you disagree with Baron who specifically pointed out various instances where the term "bear arms" was not so employed?
Query for enlightened45: Do you enjoy being proved wrong?
I don't know...when you prove me wrong, let me know....my statement in the first paragraph is correct....check it out....otherwise your legalese smog is beginning to give me a headache!
Former top U.S. Justice Department officials including former Attorney General Janet Reno, law professors, linguistic experts and historians all argued the Second Amendment protects the right of people only to keep arms for militia service.
On the other side, the Bush administration, the powerful National Rifle Association, a majority of the U.S. Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives argued an individual has the right to possess arms.
I know which side I am on.......this was just before the Heller case.......wonder how that "venerable" SCROTUS majority made their decision?
• Thirty One (31) States of the Union
• 55 Senators, 250 Members of Congress
•Goldwater Institute
•Edwin Meese, et al. (Former Dept. of Justice Officials)
•Claremont Institute/Criminologists
•Int’l Law Enforcement Trainers & Educators, et al.
•National Rifle Association
•Cato Institute
•Retired Military Officers
•Second Amendment Foundation
•Academics for the Second Amendment
•Academics
•Foreign Academics
•Institute for Justice
•Citizens Committee
•Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, et al. [Prosecutors]
•Center for Individual Freedom
•Joseph Scaranti, President Pro Tem Pa. Senate
•Southeastern Legal Foundation
•National Shooting Sports Foundation
•Heartland Institute,
•Buckeye Firearms Foundation, et al.
•American Legislative Exchange Counsel
•State Firearms Associations
•American Association of Physicians and Surgeons
•Pink Pistols
•Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
•Women State Legislators and Academics
•GeorgiaCarry.org
•Congress of Racial Equality
•Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense, et al.
•Alaska Outdoor Council, et al.
•Libertarian National Committee
•Paragon Foundation
•American Center for Law & Justice
•Grass Roots South Carolina
•Liberty Legal Institute
•Eagle Forum
•Gun Owners of America
•American Civil Rights Union
•Rutherford Institute
•Jeanette Moll/Bill of Rts Foundation
•Mountain States Legal Foundation
•Foundation for Free Expression
•Virginia 1774
•Foundation for Moral Law
•AHSA
Continued.
Briefs filed in support of DC:
•Janet Reno, et al.
•National Network to End Domestic Violence
•American Jewish Committee, et al.
•States of NY, HI, MA, MD, NJ and PR
•American Bar Ass’n
•Brady Center
•U.S. Department of Justice
•18 Members of Congress
•NAACP Legal Defense Fund
•Criminal Justice Professors
•DA’s for SF, NY
•American Academy of Pediatrics
•City of Chicago
•Winkler, Chemerinsky
•American Public Health Ass’n
•Appleseed Center, et al.
•Violence Policy Center
•Cities
•History Professors
•Linguistics Professors
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
Good point, the students at Virginia Tech did NOT have their right to bear arms honored on campus and, as a result, they were deprived of the possibility of defending themselves and others.
As has been said numerous times before, we care about the victims of ALL FORMS OF VIOLENCE. From day one we have said that we are in favor of working towards addressing all violence, not just violence committed with certain subsets of weapons.
It is your side that insists on carving out a select subset of violence to care about. And, ironically, your caring only seems to extend to that subset which represents violence committed with an implement which your side has an agenda against. In fact, we can't even get most anti-gun supporters to even acknowledge the existence of violence committed with weapons of than firearms, let alone agree to help work towards addressing other forms of violence.
What's interesting is that the anti-gun hysteria-mongers take no interest in the 100,000-2.5 million people who do not become victims of violent crime, because a good guy had a gun.
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias. August 24, 2004
Dept of Justice
In this example it was decided that the first part of the amendment can be ignored and the second is unambiguous. What nonsense! The 2nd amendment has to be taken as a whole or not at all. In fact not at all would be the best course of action to stop the slaughter of Americans.
The absolute phrase is probably one of the least understood contructs of the English language. Also called a nominative absolute, these phrases are often mistaken for clauses.
The basic construction of an absolute phrase is a noun, noun phrase, or other object which is not the subject of the sentence and a participial phrase. They are non-restrictive phrases and are properly set-off with commas from the clause to which they are attached.
Absolute phrases do not act adjectively on the subject or object of the clause. They do not cause the subject or object to exist, they do not modify or restrict the subject or object of the clause.
Acting adverbially through the finite or action verb of the predicate of the clause, absolute phrases provide backgroun information as to the circumstances of the action of the clause, but again, as non-restrictive phrases set-off by clauses they do not give the only circumstances for the action.
Absolute phrases are found more often in speech than in writing, but several notable written examples exit, probably the most famous of which is:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
This phrase does not create the right to arms, nor does it modify or restrict the right to arms. It gives one important reason to not onfringe the right.
Ref: Fowler's Modern English Usage; Harper's English Grammar; Websters Compact Writer's Guide; The Little, Brown Handbook.
Commonly the right to bear arms is confused with the God-given right of every red-blooded American to shoot people. That right however requires no legal justification to begin with since anyone giving gun-toting conservatives crap, will simply get shot. "
Local performance at a club in my area.....
Do the gun aficionados really want to be the butt of every stand up comedian in the free world?
No. We don't like being the target of unenlightened bigotry any more than anyone else.
In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
continued
Where in any of the preceding comments can you get that the militia is the elite orgaization that is allowed to keep and bear arms?
The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contained over 2 million reports as of March 1995. In 1994, over 306,000 entries were added to this file including a variety of guns, ammunition, cannons and grenades. Reports of stolen guns are included in the NCIC files when citizens report the theft to law enforcement agencies which submit a report to the FBI. All entries must include make, caliber, and serial number. Initiated in 1967, the NCIC stolen gun file retains all entries indefinitely unless a recovery is reported.
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that most gun owners have their guns stolen?
"Even when not stolen the purchase system is a joke the Craigslist killer used a fake ID to buy his gun!"
According to the police, the killer matched the description on his stolen ID almost perfectly. The gun shop owner is facing no criminal charges and the police have not accused him of any wrongdoing You can't blame it on the system. Just good tactics by the criminal
Anyway I'm really not sure what your point is. When someone has their car stolen, the response is not to blame the car owner, but to prosecute the theif and reccomend tips to the owner for better security. There is no reason the response should be different when it comes to guns.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/search/?q=&l=United+States
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/
"Maybe they just get tired of hanging out with folks who operate at the bottom of the argument pyramid?" Just0 said .......................
enlightenedone wrote: "For all the legal "scholar" input from beagle why do most, other than right wing fringers such as the SCROTUS majority, interpret the 2nd "bear arms" to mean "wage war" as was the long standing English definition, so long in usage that Shakespeare used the terms several times"
I never knew that Justice Ginsburg was a "right wing fringers". See, Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) in which she claimed bear meant: ‘to wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ See also, See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796).
Want to try again?
I'm not sure who the "we" you are reffering too includes, but it's not a majority in any aspect of American society. The SCOTUS ruling on the 2A was supported by the vast majority of the American public and both political parties (Obama and McCain each said they supported the ruling during the 2008 election).
You belief that the 2A isn't an individual right to bear arms puts you way out of mainstreem. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's something you should realize and accept.
If not, generally speaking what is the universe of gun regulations that you think should be in place?