Veda
Oct 30 2003, 10:06 PM
How do you feel about zero tolerance policies in schools? Is this something practiced in schools outside the U.S. ever?
I just read this article on cnn.com
QUOTE
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A 14-year-old student disciplined for writing a fictional account of a student who falls asleep in class and dreams of killing a teacher is moving to another school, her father told CNN Thursday.
Rachel Boim will no longer be attending Roswell High School, in a suburb north of Atlanta, because it would be too much for her to cope with, David Boim said.
The father did not say where Rachel will attend, saying his daughter needs to put this situation behind her and "just be a 14-year-old girl" and "live the life of a regular 14-year-old," Boim said.
Susan Hale, Fulton County Schools spokeswoman, said the school administration wishes her well and "wants what's best for the student" so she can have a fresh start.
Rachel was expelled last week from Roswell High School under the Fulton County School District's "zero tolerance" policy.
She was then permitted to attend school Monday while officials reconsidered the disciplinary action.
"Rachel went on Monday, she stayed home on Tuesday, and on Wednesday we officially withdrew her," David Boim said. "She is having a very difficult time dealing with the expulsion, with all the media attention. She is just a 14-year-old girl."
The girl wrote the story in her personal journal and was showing it to a classmate. Her art teacher noticed, confiscated it, read it and turned it over to school officials the next day. Rachel said the writing was strictly a work of fiction and not intended as a threat.
Rachel was negatively affected by the way the school handled her removal, her father said.
"[She was removed] from her second-period biology class -- with an armed officer," Boim said. "They had the option of calling us, of asking us to come in with Rachel to talk about the situation, but instead they had an armed guard take her out of class."
When asked about Rachel being escorted out of her classroom by an armed guard, Hale said that is not an uncommon process, and the guard could have been acting as an escort rather than responding to a perceived security threat.
"We do have, at all of our high schools and middle schools, a guard and they are armed. It is not uncommon to provide an escort to the student when they are pulled out of class, and it's not necessarily for security reasons," Hale said.
After her suspension, Rachel fell behind academically, and her father said the hearing on the matter, the expulsion and the extensive media coverage proved stressful for her.
"You can imagine," he said. "This is a lot for an adult. Imagine what it's like for a teenager."
Hale noted that Rachel always had the opportunity to switch schools, saying that she was expelled only from Roswell High and could have immediately resumed her studies at any other county high school.
A pre-school conference was set up between administrators and Boim's parents to assure that everything would go smoothly for Rachel's return on Monday, Hale said.
"I understand it was a very normal school day," Hale said. "She was greeted by her friends. Everything went well."
While I totally believe that the situation is unjust - where is the line drawn? Violate the girls privacy and freedom of speech or risk a Columbine-esque situation. Is this the same argument as the argument for invading people's privacy in the name of stopping terrorism? Is it different because children are involved?
Ananda
Oct 30 2003, 10:18 PM
Lord. High school is one of the places where we need to have lots of tolerance. It's the time in your life where your emotions and thoughts are the craziest and hardest to understand, and you have the fewest tools with which to work through all of it. You're a kid. You have a thought, you write a story. Hell, at least she was putting those feelings on paper rather than bottling them up. That's healthy. It should be encouraged. No one can control their thoughts, but they can learn to control their actions. This poor girl had her privacy violated and what was probably a minor situation was, in all likelihood, made a lot worse by the upheaval it's brought about in her life. This is the kind of discipline that turns kids against their school and everything it represents. Anyway, if she's such a threat, why not just lock her up? I mean, won't she be just as much of a threat at the new school, where she has no positive relationships and where everyone knows her as the chick who got thrown out of her old school?
We have developed a culture of fear, and rather than learning useful lessons, we're being controlled by that fear and letting it mold our lives. I think it's sickening.
ejg25
Oct 31 2003, 12:16 AM
Everything you said, ananda. I think that's ridiculous, and, as you say, deeply wrong. Even if it had been a short story submitted in class, the most it warranted was a talk with her to figure out where her head was at. The fact that she didn't tell anyone, but had written this story in her journal... just because someone is a child and on school grounds, that doesn't make her property or her mind the province of school officials.
I hope the parents go to the ACLU and sue on her behalf.
To address your question, Veda, I think invading people's privacy and violating their free speech rights is never justified, even if (very unlikely) all of the people you target turn out to be potential killers. We have to set in stone that personal rights are the essence of this country, and that you can never step over that line; sometimes that means you can't get the information you need, sometimes it means you find it or prevent the crime in another way. Because if the premise that the ends justify the means is allowed to stand, the whole thing becomes a police state, and then it hardly seems worth protecting.
mjforty
Oct 31 2003, 01:56 AM
I think a story in a journal like that can be a sign that something is wrong but only if it is paired with other behavior (such as abrupt mood swings, plummeting of grades, etc.). I think this sort of nonsense is similar to the hysteria surrounding sexaul abuse charges that happened in the late 80's, early 90's where people's lives were ruined on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence.
Mirren
Oct 31 2003, 05:19 AM
“Zero tolerance” of what? I don’t get what the policy is supposed to do. Fair enough to have zero tolerance of weapons, or drugs, in school—but what possible violation is this girl supposed to have committed?
QUOTE
We do have, at all of our high schools and middle schools, a guard and they are armed.
Now that’s truly terrifying. Is that common in the States?
ejg25
Oct 31 2003, 12:38 PM
It's to do with Columbine and school shootings.
My high school had guards, and this was way back in the day. I don't know if they were armed, though. And we passed through metal detectors only at dances, when outside kids came in.
Ananda
Oct 31 2003, 03:58 PM
We didn't have any armed guards or metal detectors that I'm aware of, but I went to a small, suburban high school.
The only thing about this story that doesn't make me want to scream is that her parents seem to think the whole thing is ridiculous as well.
mjforty
Oct 31 2003, 05:38 PM
Mirren-the zero tolerance policy comes from the fact that there have been several incidences where kids who have gone to school and shot teachers/students have written fantasy scenarios about it beforehand. So now, everyone who does this is considered a possible terrorist. I have to say, I remember an English class where we had to write and perform a play, and the group of malcontents I was joined up with, performed a one act play where we murdered the teacher. He was a really lousy teacher so he deserved it. I'm laughing at how that would be received today.
ejg25
Oct 31 2003, 06:46 PM
Man, if everything (or anything) I'd written about as a teenager had come true, I'd have a very vivid history to look back on.
Pandrea
Nov 1 2003, 08:46 PM
This isn't an issue here and I bet I know why: gun law. It would be incredibly rare for a child to be able to get hold of a gun here to commit some Columbine act. They couldn't fake their ID or borrow their dad's. I find it sickening that there's a situation where authorities would rather have armed guards in schools and criminalise children for their thoughts rather than reform the idiotic gun laws. It's Crazyworld. Poor girl.
What is an issue here, since the Dunblane massacre, is school security and not letting random people wander into schools. Anytime I've had to visit schools for work we have to get advance approval and sign in.
ejg25
Nov 2 2003, 04:17 AM
That really is what we need. No one ever killed anyone with a short story. Alas, the gun lobby provides such strong resistance.
Boliver
Nov 2 2003, 11:43 AM
QUOTE
I find it sickening that there's a situation where authorities would rather have armed guards in schools and criminalise children for their thoughts rather than reform the idiotic gun laws.
Here in the US, "authorities" usually refers to police or law enforcement, and I knew plenty of law enforcement officials who thought tighter gun laws (or simple outlawing except for hunting rifles) was the way to go. It's the legislature that votes on it over and over and can never get past the gun lobby.
So, I guess part of my question is, what type of reform of the gun laws do you think would work?
ejg25
Nov 2 2003, 02:22 PM
Almost total. No guns to private citizens except for hunting. And there should be an information campaign directed at ensuring that those guns are kept locked up and can't be accessed by children, ever. Many of these school shootings were done with guns owned by the parents or given to the kids by the parents.
Mirren
Nov 2 2003, 04:23 PM
I don't see why any private citizen needs to have access to a gun, personally - but this is one area where there's a huge divide across the Atlantic, as the right to bear arms has never been part of British culture.
QUOTE
There should be an information campaign directed at ensuring that those guns are kept locked up and can't be accessed by children, ever.
I suspect that if anyone needs to be told this, an information campaign isn't going to make much of a dent in their idiocy.
ejg25
Nov 2 2003, 08:25 PM
Well, hunting is needed to keep some animal populations down. And there are poor people in various areas of the country who use hunting as a supplementary source of food.
Pandrea
Nov 3 2003, 04:34 AM
I have to say I don't have the knowledge to really suggest a practical solution to the arms situation in the US. I understand that enforcing a ban now would be really difficult given how many firearms are around - it would be hard to get them all and it would probably go underground. But I do at least think it's insane not to expect extremely stringent regulations about who can buy one and I don't understand how anyone can oppose rules about waiting periods, ID, security checks etc.
Claudia
Nov 3 2003, 11:50 AM
The political problem is that any regulation will get in the way of someone's existing livelihood based on the way it is now. For example, waiting periods are a natural, you'd think. But a lot of (mostly reputable) gun sales happens at gun shows, and if you put in a waiting period, a weekend show loses a lot of business. Or so I understand.
ID laws are already in place, as far as I know. I'm not sure what you mean by security checks. Oh, wait, in schools? Not every school can afford to have enough security in place, if that's the meaning.
Pandrea
Nov 3 2003, 11:57 AM
I mean, proper police checks that the person buying a gun doesn't have a criminal record and has a good reason to own one. Given the number of gun casualties, I have to say that gun dealers losing a bit of money wouldn't really bother most ordinary people/voters - apart from the organised NRA lobby, that is.
Piranha
Nov 3 2003, 06:45 PM
I'm just popping in here to offer my unique POV as a former licenced shooter.
In order to become a licenced shooter (in New South Wales, where there are some restrictions and requirements on who can own a firearm and what type), I was required to have my application authorised by a JP. I then took a written and practical exam on firearm safety, administered by the NSW Police. Finally, I was given an background check and when approved, issued with a photo ID licence. It was a process that took a couple of weeks - and that was just to get the licence.
A licence is required to buy a firearm. No ifs or buts. A licence is also required if you want to participate in sporting shoots more than four times a year. That's why I became licenced. Despite being licenced, I would not be able to own firearms, as I don't have the appropriate safety gear at my house - ie approved metal safe bolted to the floor, and a seperate safe. The firearms must be stored with the bolt or action in a seperate place to the weapon. Ammunition must also be stored in a locked safe. I guess this is some consolation in that if you decide you want to shoot someone, you can't do it on the spur of the moment. You have to assemble the weapon, which provides some thinking time.
Going forward, I've allowed my licence to lapse, and I'm no longer shooting. I support and still enjoy shooting as a sport, but despite that, I don't see any reason why any individual should be allowed to keep guns in the home, except in the case of homes in rural and remote areas where guns are required for livestock control and the like. Our gun laws are not strict enough and the SSA/Shooters Party (Aussie equivalent of the NRA) are not nearly as powerful as it thinks it is. You thought Pauline Hanson was bad? You should meet the SSA/Shooters Party guys!
I do not understand the concept that bearing arms is a "right". Surely it's a priviledge, and an unnecessary one at that. Guns as sporting equipment is different, and I've already said I don't think they should be kept in the home. I'd prefer to see a general gun locker in each police station, where gunowners with a legitimate reason to have access to their guns, can store them safely.
Finally, there will always be a black market; we can never eradicate illegal weapons. We need to accept that, and to minimise illegal access to the guns we do know about.
Meowcat
Nov 3 2003, 07:17 PM
I can easily believe that. Guns certainly should not be kept in homes unless you are a farmer.
As for the poor girl I think that expelling her and making a big fuss won't help anything - quietly taking her aside and talking about the issues might.
Zero tolerance is one thing but the punishment/reaction needs to be looked at more carefully.
Boliver
Nov 3 2003, 07:59 PM
Pandrea, background checks and a mandatory waiting period (with gun show exceptions) are already the law in the U.S.
Piranha
Nov 3 2003, 09:42 PM
QUOTE (Boliver @ Nov 4 2003, 10:59 AM)
Pandrea, background checks and a mandatory waiting period (with gun show exceptions) are already the law in the U.S.
Bol, forgive me, but I had assumed that as with Australia, the gun problem in the US is primarily with weapons that are outside of the system? While I'm totally in favour of waiting periods for all firearms, imposing new laws on private "legal" gunowners doesn't touch the millions of guns owned illegally in the USA. We still have the same problem here.
As for the high school girl, my first concern would be to assess her mental state, followed closely by a commitment that she not be treated like a criminal. She needs high level counselling in case there are genuine problems, but her privacy must be protected, too. It's a touchy case, but "zero tolerance" surely can't be applied to thoughts and to journal entries! It reminds me of "Minority Report" (bad film, interesting concept). Can we punish a person because we believe they intended to commit a crime? Because they wanted to commit a crime? Even though their better angels triumphed and the crime was not committed?
I have had way too much coffee today. I'm done now.
mjforty
Nov 3 2003, 10:04 PM
A lot of the gun deaths in the U.S. are accidental and combined with the fact that you are more likely to have your legally owned gun taken away from you and used against you, I'd say the gun problem is 50% illegal guns and 50% legal guns.
Just so we're clear here, the Supreme Court has never used the Second Amendment to uphold the right to own guns. In fact, the two times the Second Amendment was an issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to own guns without restriction. The Constitution is not what is standing in the way of sensible gun laws, it's the gun lobby and the apathy of the American citizen.
ejg25
Nov 3 2003, 10:16 PM
Yeah, I think a lot of the guns these kids get hold of are their parents' and are legal. So that's not going to solve things. For that matter, neither are criminal background checks. Sure, you can weed out the previously identified criminals. But anyone can be mentally unbalanced, anyone can commit a crime of passion suddenly; you can't screen for that. All you can do is take away all guns except those used by law enforcement and security personnel... Even with those necessary ones, there's been a rise in (or a rise in documentation of) police officers shooting their families and/or themselves.
Ananda
Nov 3 2003, 11:43 PM
I know a lot of people have mixed feelings on Michael Moore (I personally am a fan), but he brings up some interesting stuff related to this issue in Bowling for Columbine. For one thing, other countries, such as Canada, have quite a few guns (not as many as we do, but a significant number) and barely any shooting deaths. The number of shooting deaths in the U.S. is completely out of proportion to the number of guns floating around, if you trust his numbers. His claim is that there is something going on beyond the need for additional gun laws. He doesn't come around to one concrete conclusion, but his implication is that it has to do with the same culture of fear that causes a high-schooler to be expelled for a journal entry. It's an interesting perspective. I don't know what real-world applications is has, though, because if he's correct, fear is so deep-rooted in our culture I don't know how we'd ever recover. You can't force news networks to show less crime, for instance.
One of the problems with nationwide bans is, like eej said, that certain segments of the population claim the need for guns for hunting. Some politicians (like Dean), support letting states decide their own gun laws, but, much as I like Dean, I don't think this would solve much. If people are willing to buy guns illegally, they'll be willing to buy guns illegally one state over.
ejg25
Nov 4 2003, 12:45 AM
Fear — that's an interesting concept. It could be that. I tend to chalk it up to America's heterogeneity; with that come racial tensions, religious tensions, class tensions, misunderstanding and hostility, people butting heads. I'm thinking of how the hordes in Hong Kong line up neatly to each side of subway and elevator doors waiting for people to come out; it seems to me that that kind of country-wide polite, lawful populace is possible only in a unified culture.
Meowcat
Nov 4 2003, 01:15 AM
We have a pretty hetrogeneous population here in Oz too but not the gun crime so I don't think that works as an expanation Ejg.
I refuses to accept that there is nothing to be done about it - the powerful gun lobby is certainly not helping though.
ejg25
Nov 4 2003, 01:40 AM
I don't think Australia is as heterogeneous as the U.S.
mjforty
Nov 4 2003, 03:51 AM
Yes, but Canada is. The documentary is interesting because Michael Moore does bring up most of the accepted reasons why America has so many more gun deaths than most countries (e.g., a historically violent past, a racially and ethincally mixed society, violence on television and in video games, etc.) and shoots them down (no pun intended). He makes a pretty good argument that we are being raised in a culture of fear and that is somehow connected to our propensity to violence.
If I could wave a magic wand, I'd make all handguns illegal since there is no need for anyone to own a handgun. I'd also get rid of all assault rifles. And if you wanted to own a hunting rifle, you'd have to show proof that you have a hunting license. All those people who make their living off of the gun culture would just have to find some other way to make a living. Other ways of making a living have become obsolete and people have moved on, this can just be added to the list. It's not a perfect solution but I think it would drastically cut down on the gun violence in this country.
Ananda
Nov 4 2003, 01:07 PM
I think the availability of assault rifles all by itself proves that we are, collectively, a nitwit. Stupidest, most dangerous thing I can think of.
You know what I'd be interested in? I'd like to know how many people actually use their guns in defense. I mean how many people scare off intruders, or save the lives of themselves or their familes with a gun. I can't imagine how you'd get those numbers, but I doubt the number is nearly as high as Heston and the NRA would like you to believe.
Of course, that brings up the other reason people won't let go of their handguns; the criminals are already armed. We've had so many guns for so long that a lot of them have trickled into the illegal gun market. I imagine that's less of a problem in countries with histories of strict gun control?
Then there's that whole thing about the cops having a monopoly on force, which is just a freaky idea: we're arming ourselves in preparation for a police state? What does that say about the direction our country is taking?
Basically, I don't think you'll get Americans to support a handgun ban (to the degree necessary to defeat the NRA) without first hunting down illegal guns and getting rid of those. Didn't some band do a concert where you got free admission if you turned in your gun? Or was that an SNL skit? I can't remember.
ejg25
Nov 4 2003, 01:18 PM
I don't think Canada is quite as diverse as the U.S., either. The U.S. has been the most desired destination of immigrants from all over the world for a century, and our population reflects that.
I don't entirely understand the culture of fear concept, because why would one country spontaneously develop a culture of fear while other countries did not? Bosnia, the former USSR, Cuba, now there are cultures of fear.
I think you have to ask: Why is America different from all other countries? And the only answer is the same one that gave us wealth, invention, worldwide cultural influence: the melting pot.
Boliver
Nov 4 2003, 01:49 PM
I do think that the American media's insistence on focusing on horrific things that happen every day sets us apart. There are tons of stories each day that are more socially important and useful than getting 10 minutes of coverage about a gangland shooting.
Having been trained in handgun shooting and having done tons of research in school on gun crimes and gun legislation, I can see the usefulness of any of these suggestions- from the more lax training and licensing requirement for any firearms, to outlawing certain types unless training/licensing/hunting permit exists. I've owned guns before, and owned them responsibly, but I don't have the feeling that having one is a need or even a want. NOT having one seems much easier than having one because the odds of being a victim of biolent crime ar so low, despite what nightly local news shows would have us think.
I have no opinion on Canada. Never been there, just know some cool people from there. Oh, and Cirque de Soleil trains there.
ejg25
Nov 4 2003, 02:32 PM
We definitely have that media angle, with the scary and abhorrent evening news. But that post-dates the gun problem, doesn't it? Also, didn't the U.K. almost invent tabloid journalism? I remember the evening news that was on in Scotland being nearly as full of shootings, crashes, murdered babies, etc.
Boliver
Nov 4 2003, 04:19 PM
But those stories were all about the royal family, which we don't have here. Heh.
Meowcat
Nov 4 2003, 05:47 PM
And Tory MP's having kinky sex : )
Also Ejg - I think you will find that Bosnia, USSR do have comparable or worse levels of gun crimes to the US - the point is the US has it with less of an explanation.
Piranha
Nov 4 2003, 09:44 PM
QUOTE (ejg25 @ Nov 4 2003, 03:45 PM)
I'm thinking of how the hordes in Hong Kong line up neatly to each side of subway and elevator doors waiting for people to come out; it seems to me that that kind of country-wide polite, lawful populace is possible only in a unified culture.
Eej, Australia is younger than America, and has a high proportion of immigrants from everywhere (especially Southern Europe and South East Asia), increasingly during the past 50 years. There is a very uneasy relationship between "Australians" and our native hosts, the Aborigines, plus massive racial tension in most of our big cities. I'd definitely say our society is as, if not more heterogeneous than the US. I guess what I'm saying is that I think we need to look beyond the "melting pot" explanation. There are arguments to be made that Australia is historically more violent, and less tolerant than America, and yet our gun-related deaths are a fraction of those in America. We have taken our media model from America, and our news reports are so similar, we even use the same theme music, so I'm not buying the media angle either. I don't really buy the culture of fear explanation either, as so many other nations share that culture but not the rate of gun-related deaths. It's something else. Please, don't ask me what, but it must be something else: relative personal wealth, consumer-driven society, loss of family values, media, access to firearms, competitive culture...there are many many possibilities and the truth is probably a combination of factors.
Boliver
Nov 5 2003, 10:03 AM
If I had to take an educated guess, I think the peculiarity has to do with a distinct number of factors, only one of which isn't in existence in other countries:
1) The media and the "society of fear"
2) Easy access of guns to both unlawful and lawful owners
3) The inability of the Supreme Court to decide on a gun ban because no federal gun bans have been sent to the Court due to the goddamned NRA effectively blocking any legislation from passing through the Congress and President.
So, as this discussion has shown, Canada has # 2 and maybe #1, but doesn't have an NRA lock on legislation. The UK and Australia essentially have gun bans, which makes #3 moot.
If it weren't for the NRA and its influence, I think at some time in the past 20 years the Congress under Democratic leadership would have continued to pass a combo federal handgun and "assault weapon" ban, and tried it until the President would sign it. But with the NRA and the millions upon millions of dollars it brings in, such legislative attempts are political suicide. It took James Brady and his wife (Handgun Control, Inc.) years and years to get even the most obviously necessary waiting period and background checks through with the Brady Law, under Clinton. I might add that I don't think Bush would have passed that bill had it come to him. (James Brady was paralyzed during the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, and he and his wife became crusaders against handguns, and it was their work that finally pushed the bill through).
So, until we can get a handgun or military-type weapons rolled into a federal legislative ban, the Supreme Court will not be able to say definitively whether a ban is legal or not.
Nalian
Nov 5 2003, 08:06 PM
Honestly I think its more the access to illegal guns that is the bigger problem. Statistics that I can recall from past reports/school related things showed that mo guns guns used in crimes were guns that were acquired through illegal means (stealing legal guns, imported from wherever illegally, etc). And yes I consider kids who take their parent's legal firearm without permission stealing.
I live in a very not nice area. I could very very easily acquire a gun through illegal means within a few short blocks of my house. No new law on the books will stop that - a crack down on how these guns are getting into the hands of these people will do that, along with tighter watch over what is imported into this country.
Regardless of how many similarities exist between Australia's population and the US's..Australia has 20 million people. The US has 292 million. How do your percentage levels compare to the US's? I've had a hard time finding anything, but I know that in general, crime is much lower than the US. Gun related or not - people are more violent in the US. I'd venture to suggest that its more of a people problem than a gun problem.
I don't know how reliable or what slant cnsnews.com is, but I find articles like
this interesting about the UK.
This site provides some interesting statistics about the US up to 1996 with guns, but nothing since then.
Piranha
Nov 5 2003, 09:04 PM
Looking for the exact figures for you, Nal, but I'm finding I need to wade through pages of websites linked to something entitled "The Gun Law Con", and supported by our equivalent of the NRA, and an assortment of other rightwing interest groups.
Finally, not recent, but from the Federal Government comes the following stats:
QUOTE
Statistics on firearms deaths in Australia for 1994 have been published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. These figures show that of 522 firearms deaths in 1994, 420 were suicides, 76 were the result of interpersonal violence, 20 were the result of an accident and in six cases, the intent was unknown.
and from the Public Health Association of Australia,
QUOTE
The PHAA notes the strong and well-evidenced relationship of the availability of guns to gun related death. This is most strongly demonstrated by the difference in legislation between Great Britain where guns are prohibited, Australia where guns are limited, and the United States where guns are common. In 1994, deaths from gunshot injuries were 153.26 per million in USA, 29 per million in Australia and 1.24 per million in Great Britain (Chapman 1996).
Finally, from
Gun Control Australia (not exactly an unbiased source!):
QUOTE
A decade ago, in 1988, just before the stricter gun laws started
to operate, 696 people died from gun wounds. Last year, 1998, there
were 327 gun deaths. Gun suicides and gun homicides have been halved
in the last ten years.
Pandrea
Nov 6 2003, 05:38 AM
You notice they had to get an American NRA man to comment on the British story. There is little support for his position here, they probably couldn't find anyone else. It's true that gun crimes have gone up but it's contained, more or less, within criminal circles mostly.
And I think that when you're talking about illegal guns acquired by stealing legal guns, Nalian, that is a problem of legal guns. If regular people don't have guns in their house to steal, it's much, much harder to acquire one surely.
Nalian
Nov 6 2003, 04:45 PM
QUOTE (Pandrea @ Nov 6 2003, 05:38 AM)
If regular people don't have guns in their house to steal, it's much, much harder to acquire one surely.
I can
guarantee you its not. Come to the city I live in for 2 hours and I can get you a gun.
ejg25
Nov 6 2003, 06:03 PM
But where? From the police station? From a gun shop? Where could you steal a gun from if there were none in private homes? I agree with Pandrea on that. Legal guns in homes are at least half of the problem, if not more.
Pandrea
Nov 6 2003, 06:03 PM
Well, thanks for the offer but I think I'll raincheck ... ;-) Anyway, where did the ones bought on the black market come from originally? Surely not all smuggled in from abroad?
Nalian
Nov 6 2003, 07:18 PM
A very large number of them are smuggled in illegally. Along with drugs and other various things..the police in this city are constantly busting stuff like that. You'd really be shocked at how much of a market smuggled guns are.
It wasn't a legitimate offer, more of a statement. :P I don't own a handgun, I don't have a permit, I just don't think that the problem is lack of gun control laws. Every school shooting breaks upwards of 30 major felonys. I find it disappointing when lawmakers want to spend more money on debating laws to make things even more illegal, instead of spending the money and using the laws we currently have to punish people for doing the stupid shit they do.
Piranha
Nov 6 2003, 07:35 PM
QUOTE (ejg25 @ Nov 7 2003, 09:03 AM)
But where? From the police station? From a gun shop? Where could you steal a gun from if there were none in private homes? I agree with Pandrea on that. Legal guns in homes are at least half of the problem, if not more.
Well, speaking for the Aus experience, legal (ie registered) guns in homes aren't often stolen because we find that the people who go to the trouble to obtain a shooters licence and register his firearms is pretty fussy about keeping those firearms secure. "Secure" means in a locked metal gunsafe that is bolted to the floor. In addition to that, the bolt, or action, is to be locked away in a seperate place. Therefore, in order to steal a registered gun from a private home, you have to know where in the house it is, crack the safe, and then go and find the bolt. It's not an opportunistic crime. As I've said before, I see no reason why any individual should need to keep a firearm at home (agricultural purposes excepted), but in New South Wales at least, there are measures in place to keep them safe.
Also, I notice in the US, there are "carry permits". In Australia they are incredibly rare and hard to get. Firearms Down Under tend to be less mobile and less visible.
The origin of the illegal guns is a bloody good question, though. I don't recall ever hearing of a gun shop in Australia being robbed; I've been in a few of them, and I doubt it's even possible. The security in those stores is amazing. I've not heard of police stations being robbed either. My guess is that the illegal weapons in Australia are a mixture of those that have been handed down through families since the year dot (pre-registration) and that nobody ever bothered to register, and those that are obtained illegally.
Just a note of interest: a couple of weeks ago, Aussie Olympic double gold medallist, shooter Michael Diamond was placed under an AVO by his ex-girlfriend. His shooters licence has immediately been cancelled, and rightly so. He can no longer practice his sport, or compete in it, in Australia.
QUOTE
I find it disappointing when lawmakers want to spend more money on debating laws to make things even more illegal, instead of spending the money and using the laws we currently have to punish people for doing the stupid shit they do.
Absolutely.
libbylou
Nov 6 2003, 08:01 PM
Pirahna, 34 semiautomatics were stolen from a security firm in Sydney at the beginning of September.
So we are starting to have more and more gun crime here.
ejg25
Nov 6 2003, 08:17 PM
By theft, I'm really focusing on what Pandrea was saying: children taking their parents' guns. Not strangers. So presumably they know where they're located and how to get them, and in some cases are permitted to handle them. It think that (and thus legal guns) account for most school and workplace shootings. The guns are already in the home.
Piranha
Nov 6 2003, 08:51 PM
QUOTE (libbylou @ Nov 7 2003, 11:01 AM)
Pirahna, 34 semiautomatics were stolen from a security firm in Sydney at the beginning of September.
So we are starting to have more and more gun crime here.
Yeah, I did hear about that, and I know that a couple of security guards have been relieved of their guns in Sydney too. I see that as the responsibility of the security companies in question: their firearms are "legal", but they have a responsibility to ensure their security. If they can't, they should not be allowed to operate armed security companies, should they? But still, those guns were "legal" until stolen, and which point they fall into the category of "illegally obtained".
Unfortunately, gun control laws don't apply to those 34 semi-automatics because they're outside of the law already. As Nalian said earlier, let's stop trying to make new laws, and start enforcing the ones we already have.
mjforty
Nov 6 2003, 09:02 PM
Carry permits in the U.S. are also rare and hard to get.
QUOTE
Surely not all smuggled in from abroad?
There is no need to smuggle guns from abroad. The U.S. gun manufacturers make plenty of guns and flood the markets. I would say that it's probably a combination of legally purchasing some and stealing some. I do think that the "if we make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns" is a mindset that is part of the culture of fear that Michael Moore talks about in his documentary. I have never owned a gun and I don't feel that if guns were outlawed I would be less safe. I actually think I'd be safer than I am now. Since being allowed to legally purchase guns doesn't seem to be working, I'm willing to try making them illegal and see how that works.
ejg25
Nov 6 2003, 11:50 PM
Yes. I definitely think it's a case of us needing more laws. It's too easy to get a legal gun here. Often these crimes happen because people already have a gun. You're feeling suicidal or in an argument with your wife, and the gun is there.