Video: 5 facts about guns, schools, and violence

posted at 10:01 am on January 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Say, anyone interested in actual facts about guns, violence, and schools?  If so, Reason’s Nick Gillespie and Amanda Winkler have five key points about the actual status of school safety and the impact of guns on American society.  The truth is that violent crime and mass shootings have declined since the 1990s, even with events like Newtown and Aurora.  Schools are safer now than in decades.  However, those data points don’t lend themselves to hysterics hopng to panic people into bad legislation that won’t solve the problems they supposedly address:

1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.

The violent crime rate - which includes murder, rape, and beatings – is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.

2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.

Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer’s theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University, who studies the issue. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.

3. Schools are getting safer.

Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be. Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14.

4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.

Over the past 20 years, virtually every state in the country has liberalized gunownership rules and many states have expanded concealed carry laws that allow more people to carry weapons in more places. There around 300 million guns in the United States and at least one gun in about 45 percent of all households. Yet the rate of gun-related crime continues to drop.

5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective.

While many people are calling for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons – an arbitrary category of guns that has no clear definition – research shows it would have no effect on crime and violence. “Should it be renewed,” concludes a definitive study, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

We have a violence-glorification problem, but that’s not something a law can fix or a government stamp out — nor should we wish to live in a society where it’s tried.  We need to start pushing back in the culture against the glorification of violence and death, not with legislation, but by defending values of life in the public arena.  We do not hide behind failed legal approaches (ask Chicago and Washington DC how well gun bans worked for them) as an avoidance measure to deal with issues of mental illness and the degradation of values in our society.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Colbyjack on January 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM

I guess that makes me one in a 100,000……

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Colbyjack on January 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM

No wonder its taking them so long to get my startup goodies and magazine subscription to me.
I hope they send me a “high capacity” magazine…. :D

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 12:53 PM

These facts are faulty, obviously.

BobMbx on January 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Believe me when I tell you this, the ability to shoot a hand gun or rifle isn’t one of those differences between men and women.
SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Not across the board, but there are differences that can have an effect. I had my wife checking out our various guns (none of which she has ever yet fired) to see what she can handle for her own. She didn’t have the arm strength to even cock my M&P9 or my AR-15, barely able to cock my Marlin .22 and Mossberg 500; and she couldn’t hold up the the AR or my son’s AK in firing position for very long. SHE made the point herself that before she gets an AK of her own she needs to do some weight training.

On the other hand, when I worked basic training as an upperclassman at the USAF Academy one summer, an NCO had a demo for this issue go horribly wrong. He had volunteers that met average cadet description, 1 female and 1 male, do pullups to show the differences. The female (recruited track studette) did nearly twice as many pullups as the guy. Embarrassed the hell out of him.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Not everyone. All males between 18 and 65 should be required to not only own, but take private firearms training courses i.e. well regulated. It is necessary.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 10:16 AM

I don’t think the liberals have thought this through. Republicans and maybe even conservatives will be back in power at some point and Obamacare left the door wide open to such a law. We now know it would pass muster in the SC. Obamacare shows you can force Americans to buy something and as long as you call a tax a fee and a fee a tax at the right time, it’s all constitutional. I’d love to see the liberals I know being forced to buy a gun and go for safety class and target practice.

hopeful on January 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM

On the other hand, when I worked basic training as an upperclassman at the USAF Academy one summer, an NCO had a demo for this issue go horribly wrong. He had volunteers that met average cadet description, 1 female and 1 male, do pullups to show the differences. The female (recruited track studette) did nearly twice as many pullups as the guy. Embarrassed the hell out of him.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

There is no physiological or biological imperative that demands that women cannot be physically fit. It’s cultural. From a purely physiological position yes, men generally are physically stronger than women, no one is denying that. However the physiological strength differences are not a significant issue when it comes to small arms as the Israeli and Swiss national defense forces have proven, it’s more a cultural difference in being physically fit.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

You attempted to exclude half of America’s population based purely on their sex.

From the militia, which I was thinking of as infantry. And could be said to be a constitutional requirement, being necessary and all.

Take a good look at Israel’s IDF. They recognize that their are physiological differences between men and women, but require both men and women to serve and both do with distinction

Not as front line infantry, although they are paying lip service to it.

, they just do not expect men and women to be interchangeable.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 12:50 PM

So you basically agree with me.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Very good video from John Stossel on the truth about gun control!
(pulled from a FB post by a friend)

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

It’s disturbing and astounding that there is not a single forensic psychiatrist (or similarly trained professional) involved in the Biden GBG (Gun Ban Group) and that no attention is being paid to the effect that the treatment of these events (such as Newtown) after the fact can have on potential future perpetrators.

24/7 news coverage for days. Publishing every photo they can find of the shooter. Blasting his name and photo out over the airwaves until he is a household figure. Publishing body counts, details of the killings, interviews with friends, relatives, or anyone who’s willing to talk into a microphone, photos of the victims, any scrap of news or non-news, on and on.

A lonely, troubled boy (in this case) goes from the nobody he knows he is and will (presume to) always be, to a worldwide “celebrity” (for the wrong reason, perhaps, but celebrity nonetheless) in the bat of an eye (or a CNN logo).

I have seen one interview with a forensic psychologist (call Quantico if you don’t know where to look) who had specific suggestions for steps to take to keep from creating these cult counter-heroes. We focus so much on the killer in these cases that we are not paying attention to what our obsessive focus is saying to the next one.

One shooter, though not a mass killer (Hinkley) even has national legislation passed with his name on it.

IndieDogg on January 10, 2013 at 1:11 PM

I’d love to see the liberals I know being forced to buy a gun and go for safety class and target practice.

hopeful on January 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM

However, as funny as it might be to watch, there would probably be a large increase in the number of accidental shootings by these clueless liberals who are afraid of guns – many of them probably shooting themselves – which would then skew the statistics to make guns look more dangerous.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I’d love to see the liberals I know being forced to buy a gun and go for safety class and target practice.

hopeful on January 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Which is exactly why I wrote Time for a Mandatory Federal Firearms Law, Enter the Affordable Firearms Act. Schadenfreude at it’s most deliciously glorious.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

One shooter, though not a mass killer (Hinkley) even has national legislation passed with his name on it.

Oops, that would be his victim, Brady. Hey, everybody screws up now and then, even The One (though you’d never know it).

IndieDogg on January 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I’d love to see the liberals I know being forced to buy a gun and go for safety class and target practice.

hopeful on January 10, 2013 at 1:04 PM

They would scream louder than the liberals who hate the work requirement to receive welfare. There are liberals out there who hate capitalism for two reasons: It requires people to repay debts, and it requires people to have a job. And, yes–I read a piece a few weeks ago where some OWS types actually said that.

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 1:13 PM

From the militia, which I was thinking of as infantry. And could be said to be a constitutional requirement, being necessary and all.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Don’t be lazy and just make assumptions. “Militia” is not defined in the US Constitution because it left it up to the individual states to define.

I live in Ohio. The Ohio Constitution states…

Ohio Constitution Section 9.01: “All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law.”

At least in Ohio, there is no limitation based on sex. You only need be an Ohio citizen, aged 17-66 to be considered part of the militia.

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM

That’s a good point, but I could without the insulting delivery.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Sorry, maybe I shouldn’t have been so harsh with the “lazy” tag. But I’m tired of conservatives not understanding the foundation required to defend their beliefs. Know what your state constitution says about your militia so you can properly instruct others (especially liberal relatives!) about what constitutes a “militia” under the Constitution.

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

However, as funny as it might be to watch, there would probably be a large increase in the number of accidental shootings by these clueless liberals who are afraid of guns – many of them probably shooting themselves – which would then skew the statistics to make guns look more dangerous.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

ROTFLMAO… Sorry, while the visual imagery is amusing, I honestly do not think that would happen. Liberals are generally speaking misguided and wrong about nearly everything, but I don’t think that it can honestly be argued that they are as individuals stupid.

Mostly they are just victims of some very serious indoctrination, they have been deprived of real information and indoctrinated to not think objectively or rationally. Most liberals are not evil or mendacious, just indoctrinated and misguided.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Know what your state constitution says about your militia so you can properly instruct others (especially liberal relatives!) about what constitutes a “militia” under the Constitution.

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Liberals will say the notion is antiquated and so it doesn’t count any more. Or, their dogged belief that state police or National Guard are the ‘militia’ nowadays.

Gun grabbers want only one thing: To take the guns from the law-abiding. To try taking them from criminals is a civil rights or due-process violation.

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

I’ve pointed out the State Constitution definition of “militia” for Ohio for years, every time gun control comes up, and not once have I had any comment or reply with… “my state says our militia is…”

And you think a “gun collection officer” isn’t going to have an “insulting delivery”? You’re going to need a thicker skin if you are thinking of surviving the next few decades.

Let me know what you find out if your state constitution describes who is included in the militia… I’m genuinely interested.

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

But I’m tired of conservatives not understanding the foundation required to defend their beliefs. Know what your state constitution says about your militia so you can properly instruct others (especially liberal relatives!) about what constitutes a “militia” under the Constitution.

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Exactly, militia’s are not professional standing armies. They are everyday average citizens who are expected to own a firearm, know how to use it and are prepared to offer resistance to either domestic government forces attempting to impose unconstitutional tyrannies or invading forces.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM

There is no physiological or biological imperative that demands that women cannot be physically fit. It’s cultural. From a purely physiological position yes, men generally are physically stronger than women, no one is denying that. However the physiological strength differences are not a significant issue when it comes to small arms as the Israeli and Swiss national defense forces have proven, it’s more a cultural difference in being physically fit.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Absolutely. The strongest women will not be as strong as the strongest men. However women in good shape can easily be stronger than men on the lower end of the strength scale – or perhaps I should say men that are not at the top of the strength scale. I’ve known women in the Air Force who were in better shape than a lot of guys – but they still would not be able to compete against say a good football player in top condition.

And I’ve known some women who are VERY good shots. I know a retired female Army Colonel (about 5′ 5″ and maybe 110 lbs) who was never beaten by any man on the urban assault shooting courses. Whenever she took over a new unit, she would challenge the entire unit (offering a 3 day pass if they beat her), specifically any of the men who thought she didn’t belong as the commander – and she never lost.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Liberals will say the notion is antiquated and so it doesn’t count any more. Or, their dogged belief that state police or National Guard are the ‘militia’ nowadays.

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

I know the arguments. I’ve heard them many times. My answer is, “That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But the fact you didn’t know the law shows you are already poorly educated… so why should I seriously consider the opinion of someone already proven poorly educated?”

The Ohio Constitution explicitly defines the militia. It doesn’t matter what they want or feel… they’re still uninformed or wrong.

…drives them nuts to be proven intellectually deficient! :)

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM

No problem with my skin, I just don’t need to put up with it from people who presumably agree with me …mostly.

Actually, I live in Ohio too. I had forgotten about the definition in the constitution, but I vaguely remember seeing it some time before. Maybe I’m making up memories. I see it also says

The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for the protection and safe keeping of the public arms.

Which I read to mean the militia doesn’t get to keep it’s own arms. Plenty of room for abuse there.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Exactly, militia’s are not professional standing armies. They are everyday average citizens who are expected to own a firearm, know how to use it and are prepared to offer resistance to either domestic government forces attempting to impose unconstitutional tyrannies or invading forces.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 1:24 PM

And what’s even more “crazy” is then understanding what Article I Section 8 Clause 16 of the US Constitution requires of Congress…

US Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clause 16:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Crap, you mean that Congress is supposed to provide firearms and training to civilians in the militias?!?!? Yep…!

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Not everyone on the boards is a retired First with doctors in history, philosophy, and life. There are 20s and 80s, military and Walmart — and maybe we could all back the hell off and let people who are trying to comment in good faith do just that — and maybe we could try to bring them along by pointing things out they might not know.

Or we could all just grab some rulers, drop our pants, and stop pretending our blood goes all the way up.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM

ROTFLMAO… Sorry, while the visual imagery is amusing, I honestly do not think that would happen. Liberals are generally speaking misguided and wrong about nearly everything, but I don’t think that it can honestly be argued that they are as individuals stupid.

Mostly they are just victims of some very serious indoctrination, they have been deprived of real information and indoctrinated to not think objectively or rationally. Most liberals are not evil or mendacious, just indoctrinated and misguided.

SWalker on January 10, 2013 at 1:19 PM

I agree, but my comment about them shooting themselves is not so much about them being stupid, as about them being afraid of the guns and therefore potentially careless with them or just unable to handle them.

We had a news report here recently about a guy cleaning his guns, and “trying to show his wife how to safely handle a gun” – and he shot himself through the left hand and leg in the process. The idiot had not ensured the guns were EMPTY before trying to clean them. People like that sure don’t help our cause very much.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Which I read to mean the militia doesn’t get to keep it’s own arms. Plenty of room for abuse there.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Very true about the public arms. I had forgotten that point. But that only means that the state has its own armories for the purpose of arming its citizen militias in times of trouble. In peaceful times, citizens should be encouraged to own and train with firearms in order to be able to step into the role of effective militia, as described in the US Constitution. Once you understand all these pieces, everything starts to make sense. (Especially when you consider that the army is not really supposed to be a standing army… only a standing navy.)

I am sorry about the way I replied to you.

And I do appreciate that you do remember the Ohio Constitution and militia.

Anyone else out there care to look up info for their state?

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Or we could all just grab some rulers, drop our pants, and stop pretending our blood goes all the way up.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM

??? You lost me there, I have no idea what that means.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 1:37 PM

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Hey, you don’t have to be superpolite either, it’s no big deal. I get pissy once in a while too.

Hopefully the public arms thing would be overridden by the US Constitution, but the gungrabbers have no shame.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Anyone else out there care to look up info for their state?

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM

I don’t know. I just tossed a general Google search to start poking around and the results — this is hilarious — all had to do with civil war reenactment. :) (Louisiana).

. . . obviously need to go to the right “building” and leave broad Google search out of it. Bookmarked; do it tonight.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 1:41 PM

??? You lost me there, I have no idea what that means.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 1:37 PM

A thing to just drop. :)

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 1:41 PM

…drives them nuts to be proven intellectually deficient! :)

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM

And it’s a very short drive, indeed! *L*

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Anyone else out there care to look up info for their state?
dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Interesting twist for a state that has turned terribly blue….

Colorado Constitution
Article 17
Militia
Section 1. Persons subject to service. The militia of the state shall consist of all able�bodied male residents of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty�five years; except, such persons as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of the state.

Section 2. Organization � equipment � discipline. The organization, equipment and discipline of the militia shall conform as nearly as practicable, to the regulations for the government of the armies of the United States.

Section 3. Officers � how chosen. The governor shall appoint all general, field and staff officers and commission them. Each company shall elect its own officers, who shall be commissioned by the governor; but if any company shall fail to elect such officers within the time prescribed by law, they may be appointed by the governor.

Section 4. Armories. The general assembly shall provide for the safekeeping of the public arms, military records, relics and banners of the state.

Section 5. Exemption in time of peace. No person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to do militia duty in time of peace; provided, such person shall pay an equivalent for such exemption.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Anyone else out there care to look up info for their state?

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM

The NY state constitution consists of one section and one paragraph (Article XII, Defense)

Text of Section 1:

“Defense; militia

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.”

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Article_XII,_New_York_Constitution

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Section27. The freedom to hunt, fish, and trap wildlife, including all aquatic life, traditionally taken by hunters, trappers and anglers, is a valued natural heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people. Hunting, fishing and trapping shall be managed by law and regulation consistent with Article IX, Section I of the Constitution of Louisiana to protect, conserve and replenish the natural resources of the state. The provisions of this Section shall not alter the burden of proof requirements otherwise established by law for any challenge to a law or regulation pertaining to hunting, fishing or trapping the wildlife of the state, including all aquatic life. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to authorize the use of private property to hunt, fish, or trap without the consent of the owner of the property.

lol :) (LA)

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Maybe I do want that bayonet lug on them afterall….

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 12:46 PM

My cheap chinese SKS came with a nice bayonet…my “hypothethical” SKS.

freedomfirst on January 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Anyone else out there care to look up info for their state?

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Outstanding question, there. The gun-grabbers will have a hard time absorbing all these various state constitutional matters regarding arms and militia.

From the PA state constitution, where I used to live…

“Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1.

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.”

This is a kicker:

“Political Powers
Section 2.

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

Plus…

“Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

I found no specific mention of militia, except in the section regarding criminal proceedings. But the concept remains clear with half a brain. which tends to exclude liberals quite often.

Again, a great question you posed!

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM

§3. Militia

A. All able-bodied persons between the ages of seventeen and sixty-four residing in this state and who are not exempt by the laws of the United States of America or of this state constitute the militia of Louisiana and are subject to military duty.

B. The militia is divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

(1) The organized militia consists of the national guard, the Louisiana State Guard and other organized military forces which may be authorized by law.

(2) The unorganized militia consists of all other persons subject to military duty.

Acts 1974, No. 622, §1

Louisiana. I think I was just drafted.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I’m sure this has been said before, but if gun-free zones are so great, why don’t we use them for DC, government facilities, celebrities, etc. — they all have armed guards because that’s the best way to protect them, why should our kids get any different?

toby11 on January 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Louisiana. I think I was just drafted.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM

If I were drafted to defend NY, I would defect to Texas.

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I’m sure this has been said before, but if gun-free zones are so great, why don’t we use them for DC, government facilities, celebrities, etc. — they all have armed guards because that’s the best way to protect them, why should our kids get any different?

toby11 on January 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Silly wabbit….
They don’t want US or OUR kids protected – just themselves.
All just part of the liberal standard – do as I say, not as I do.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 2:17 PM

If I were drafted to defend NY, I would defect to Texas.

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Loved that PA 2 & 21. :)

Peep our beautiful 26:

§26. State Sovereignty

Section 26. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

Acts 1997, No. 1494, §1, approved Oct. 3, 1998, eff. Nov. 5, 1998.

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM

More for Colorado:

Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Interesting since state legislation has made concealed carry a “shall issue” right.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Yes!

Liam on January 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Time to scrap the NRA’s insanity around armed guards and teachers in every school.

cornfedbubba on January 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Why is it insane? Explain to us the downside of arming teachers and school administrators. Is an unchallenged scumbag mowing down children an upside for you?

NotCoach on January 10, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Some of these state laws look like America. Sort of heartening. I feel better than I’ve felt in a while.

@dominigan — thanks for the homework. :)

Axe on January 10, 2013 at 2:40 PM

PatriotGal2257 on January 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I understand, and that issue occurred to me. But in general women as infantry just don’t cut it, they don’t have the upper body strength. But it’s not all about the infantry and maybe you’re right.

Fenris on January 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM

That’s a completely different discussion.

All women and girls should be trained in firearms useage along with men and boys. It is as important that women have the knowledge and ability to protect themselves and their families as it is for men.

[I'd go even further...Every high school student should receive mandatory firearms training in each of the four years of high school; and, upon graduation, should receive - along with their diploma - a 1911A1 in .45ACP.]

Solaratov on January 10, 2013 at 2:43 PM

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I keep thinking of the Twit Of The Year competition (Monty Python sketch).

GWB on January 10, 2013 at 2:58 PM

[I’d go even further…Every high school student should receive mandatory firearms training in each of the four years of high school; and, upon graduation, should receive – along with their diploma – a 1911A1 in .45ACP.]

Solaratov on January 10, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Hey – now there’s a graduation present I would have liked to get!!
I got an airline ticket, a suitcase and shaver to head off to basic training.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 3:02 PM

I keep thinking of the Twit Of The Year competition (Monty Python sketch).

GWB on January 10, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Yes! And we’d probably have lots of interesting new candidates for the annual Darwin Awards…

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Virginia Code:

44-1. Composition of militia.

The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia.

44-4. Composition of unorganized militia.

The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied persons as set out in 44-1, except such as may be included in 44-2, 44-3, and 44-54.6, and except such as may be exempted as hereinafter provided.

(44-2 is the National Guard info and 44-3 is the naval militia info; not sure what 44-54 is at the moment.)

GWB on January 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Wel, dang! Look what I found!

10 USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
Militia: composition and classes
(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.

Well, looky there. Looks like – at a minimum, using a progressive interpretation of the 2d Amendment – every male 17-45yo, and all females who are in the Guard get a totally free pass on “bearing arms”. Could be a buzzkill for the gun-grabbers out there.

GWB on January 10, 2013 at 3:33 PM

If you are going to kill someone with an Uzi, be gay:

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/11/local/me-19178

unclesmrgol on January 10, 2013 at 4:46 PM

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 1:01 PM

What year was that, dent? It wasn’t Martha McSally, was it?

GWB on January 10, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Alas, the American statist left never has and never will let the truth get in the way of doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. And the road to serfdom is always paved with innocent blood. If it serves the over-arching agenda of undermining the authority of the Constitution in general, the left will inwardly rejoice at, and outwardly demagogue the deaths of, a thousand children, let alone a mere twenty. And if the resulting power-grab results in the deaths of a thousand more, or even 10,000, that’s just the price of doing their brand of business. When the ends themselves are evil, one can’t be surprised when the means employed to achieve them are neither savory nor honest.

Blacklake on January 10, 2013 at 5:16 PM

What year was that, dent? It wasn’t Martha McSally, was it?

GWB on January 10, 2013 at 5:07 PM

No not Martha.
It was summer of 1981.

dentarthurdent on January 10, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Washington State Law!

Article I – Section 24 – Right to Bear Arms

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

Article X – Sections 1 – 6 – Militia

Section 1 Who Liable to Military Duty All able-bodied male citizens of this state between the ages of eighteen (18) and forty-five (45) years except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or by the laws of this state, shall be liable to military duty.

Section 2 Organization – Disipline – Officers _ Power to Call Out The legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia in such manner as it may deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed in such manner as the legislature shall from time to time direct and shall be commissioned by the governor. The governor shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

Section 3 Soldiers’ Home The legislature shall provide by law for the maintenance of a soldiers’ home for honorably discharged Union soldiers, sailors, marines and members of the state militia disabled while in the line of duty and who are bona fide citizens of the state.

Section 4 Public Arms The legislature shall provide by law, for the protection and safe keeping of the public arms.

Section 5 Privilege from Arrest The militia shall, in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at musters and elections of officers, and in going to and returning from the same.

Section 6 Exemption from Military Duty No person or persons, having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to do militia duty in time of peace: Provided, such person or persons shall pay an equivalent for such exemption.

Well, well well. Look at that. I even get EXTRA legal protection on the way to and from the Militia meetings. Screw you Libtards.

Bulletchaser on January 10, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Know what your state constitution says about your militia so you can properly instruct others (especially liberal relatives!) about what constitutes a “militia” under the Constitution.

dominigan on January 10, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Liberals will say the notion is antiquated and so it doesn’t count any more.

Yes, the “musty old Constitution” argument has popped up a lot in recent weeks…or the “musty old 2nd amendment,” I should say. “The Founding Fathers never could have conceived of modern rapid-fire weapons and high-capacity clips,” goes the argument. “We need some updating.”

Well, the Founding Fathers also never could have conceived of the near-instantaneous dissemination of information and misinformation to every corner of this country via the internet. But I don’t hear too many people complaining about the musty old 1st amendment. This seems inconsistent.

Owen Glendower on January 10, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Section 2. Organization � equipment � discipline. The organization, equipment and discipline of the militia shall conform as nearly as practicable, to the regulations for the government of the armies of the United States.

Section 3. Officers � how chosen. The governor shall appoint all general, field and staff officers and commission them. Each company shall elect its own officers, who shall be commissioned by the governor; but if any company shall fail to elect such officers within the time prescribed by law, they may be appointed by the governor.

I suppose it’s too much to hope that a few liberals would read these paragraphs and thus gain a better understanding of what “well-regulated” means in the 2nd amendment…or, more accurately, what it meant at the time. Clearly, the details of the “well-regulated” (i.e., “properly-organized”) militia were not TOTALLY left up to the individual state.

Regrettably, many people with no historical knowledge of the English language read “well-regulated militia” and think that they know what it means. They don’t, and therefore completely misread the 2nd amendment.

Owen Glendower on January 10, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2