Is it because the nation was born out of a victim complex?

There is a difference between either/or and both/and, the latter of which applies in the present case.

The argument from self defense is false. That merely states you are allowed to repel force with force. It has exactly zero to say about gun ownership. If a society allows guns, then guns can be used in self defense.

What's generally not understood about the Constitution of the United States of America is that at the time of writing and ratification it was understood as a restraint of the powers of the new federal government. Amendment 10 makes this explicit:

10) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

At the time, the states were powerful; the federal government was barely a piece of paper. They were telling the the new government what it could, and could not, do. Not for a second did any state intend it to be understood that one state could tell another state what it could, or could not, do. Nor that any thing could constrain the powers of a state within its own borders. As Madison's notes make clear, a fear shared by the several states was that a) the other states could gang up on one or two states and b) the larger could suppress the smaller. The states large and small were utterly jealous of their powers. If one state wished to outrage some minority community within its borders, no other state could gainsay it.

Now, there are at least two ways to read the Constitution - or any document. There may be more than two, but there are at least two. The first is simply to read with an open mind to see what it says.- most people understand that this isn't entirely as simple as it sounds. For example, 20th and now 21st century Americans, accustomed to the protections of the 14th amendment (1865):

14. Sect. 1) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

cannot easily grasp that before the Civil War, the states legally could and legally did abuse citizens of the United States. The best examples, of course, are the treatment of slaves. But some understanding of the history makes clear the de facto power of the states v. the federal government. We, now, suppose the federal government can always make things right, as, for example, with the use of federal troops and federal law enforcement during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. But from 1788 to 1865, the federal government had no such power (except of course through force of arms during the Civil War).

The second way to read a document, especially a Constitution, is to try to find ways to make it say what you want it to say. To be sure, this has been the great American game since 1790.

Before turning to how this all bears on the 2d amendment, there's a principle of law that's useful to revisit. If reading the Constitution for its meaning, to understand it, in sense 1 above, supporting documentation like The Federalist Papers and a large number of other documents can help. But the law itself as written is what is authoritative.

When reading in the second sense, to impose meaning on the constitution, the supporting literature is often - usually - used. The trick is revealed (to those who will see it) in substituting the secondary material as the law, against the plain sense of the law itself. And sometimes just the logic of the thing reveals the trick.

Now, to be brief. The argument is that the 2d amendment creates a right of individuals to own guns. Nowhere does the second amendment say that. For the third time in this thread, here it is:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

First, we know that this is a constraint against the new federal government. They shall not infringe the people's right. The idea here is about the security of the state, as maintained by its self-armed citizenry, the well-regulated militia. There are those who will argue, but there it is. The states are telling the federal government it has no power over guns owned by citizens of the several states.

Second, the constraint against the federal government bestows no positive right. How could it? People were citizens of the state. If the state wanted to infringe within its borders, no one could intervene. That state's right was not surrendered, nor did anyone imagine that it was - or could be!

If you're a white man in, say 1795, you can just barely derive a right to own a gun, derive it from a prior authorization by the state to have a well-regulated militia. Beyond that, there are simply accepted practices of ownership of guns as tools. I am unaware of any argument that anyone either thought of these as rights, or thought to curtail or limit them. It was just the way it was in a frontier country. People owned guns; they also owned axes and knives.

The modern argument of a right to own and have a gun finds support in a 2d amendment that's been twisted to say something it never said, mean something it never meant. This isn't to say that no argument can be made, merely that the 2d amendment argument is corrupt and bankrupt from the start.

http://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/american-teacher-cant-wait-show-off-anti-terror-muscle-memory-school-shooter/

If I were still in teaching and some arsehole told me to carry a gun, I'd tell them where to stick it. Militarising schools is not the solution to gun violence, less guns is. Someone please tell the children who run America that.

Now, there are at least two ways to read the Constitution - or any document. — tim wood

There is one way to interpret the Constitution - by looking up the quotes of the founding fathers (the authors of the document) that relate to and explain their own reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” - George Washington First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

If I were still in teaching and some arsehole told me to carry a gun, I'd tell them where to stick it. Militarising schools is not the solution to gun violence, less guns is. Someone please tell the children who run America that. — Baden

Less guns in schools actually is one of the problems. Gun-free zones are where these kinds of attacks take place, which is why you have to wait for the police (more guns) to show up to handle the problem.

I don't see you arguing for less guns in banks. Has there ever been a problem there? Then why would you think having armed guards in schools a problem? We don't arm the bank tellers and so I'm not agreeing with arming teachers. I'm just saying to have trained guards at schools.

Typical. You cite as authors Washington, Jefferson, Franklin. Washington was president of the convention, and with one exception scrupulously avoided participating in the debates; the exception had nothing to do with guns. Jefferson wasn't there. And your! quote from Franklin is out of context and not about guns. You're an example of someone trying to get the constitution to say what it does not say. Read the amendment! It's not literature or poetry, subject to creative interpretation. Rather it is intended to mean what is says, and not mean what it doesn't say.

I'm glad you don't disagree with me concerning the perverse suggestion that teachers should be armed. Extra security at schools including the possible employment of armed guards is a different issue, and seems a less objectionable proposal on the surface for obvious reasons though I still don't agree with it. I'd rather we stop treating the symptoms and start treating the cause. There's a fairly simple equation at work here—the more guns there are in a given environment, the more often they get used, and the more often innocent people get killed through their use, both accidentally and purposefully.

I don't see you arguing for less guns in banks. Has there ever been a problem there? — Harry Hindu

Yes, the problem is more people getting killed, so you're wrong to think I wouldn't argue for that. I'd rather bank robbers take the money, leave, and then be pursued by the police (armed if necessary) than that they get involved in shootouts with armed guards and risk killing customers in the crossfire. Obviously, the more armed the guards are, the more armed the criminals will tend to be, and the more potential there is for violence. And it's not as if it's preventative. Which is why we don't have armed guards in banks in Ireland, for example, and we have less robberies and less people getting killed in robberies. So, apart from this being common sense, it works. But just research it yourself.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/fbi-bank-robbery-data-shows-armed-guards-increase-risk-of-violence/

"Research [shows] that...the presence of defensive weapons creates a greater risk of violence
...In an environment like this, arming guards in all locations is premature. Even in locations where robberies do occur, the presence of a guard increases the likelihood of violence and injury."

Introduction to private security - John Dempsey

"According to the FBI, the simple presence of any on-site weapon automatically increases the potential risk of violence. When a Security Guard is armed on the job, the potential threat of violence automatically increases yet again..."

https://www.eldoradoinsurance.com/security-industry-news/security-guard-violence-trends/

(Insurance company).

"Many people perceive armed security officers favorably as a deterrent against violence and an assurance that a violent incident can be quickly quelled. From a client's ... The presence of an additional firearm—even in an officer's hands—only stands to increase the risk of casualties."

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Guns-and-Security-The-Risks-of-Arming-Security-Officers.aspx

(Security management company).

The idea that the way to solve the problem of violence is to increase the means of carrying it out is completely wrong no matter how selectively you try to apply the principle. And the attitude of looking to guns as being a solution to anything rather than simply a menace we'd all be better off without is very culturally specific to the U.S. The weight of empirical evidence shows that a less armed society at every level (apart from military defence) is a safer and more secure society. There is nothing to fall back on for the gun lovers except their love for their guns and a bunch of irrational attempts at justification that fall apart even on a very basic analysis.

So here's a study that might interest some.

What I found rather shocking though was the unwillingness of government even to compile statistics on mass shootings or to fund studies.

To further the understanding of the underlying root causes of these events, and to confirm whether or not contagion truly plays a role, an official comprehensive detailed, accurate, and publicly available federal database of incidents of all mass killings and school shootings in the US is necessary. A database that includes, at a minimum, details on the background events, mental health status and access to mental health treatment of the perpetrators, exactly what kinds of weapons were used, where the perpetrators obtained their weapons, and whether they did so legally or illegally. Several studies of firearm violence over the past decade have pointed out the need for such a database (see, for instance, References [46, 47]). For the time being, while waiting for such a database to become available, studies such as this must use what data are available, paying attention to cross-checks of the robustness of the modeling methodology to potential biases, as we have attempted to do here.

Studies into the prevention of such tragedies are also hampered by the freeze on federal funding for research into gun violence in the United States, put in place by Congress in 1997 [48, 49]. In January, 2013, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to resume studies into firearm violence. However, at the time of this writing in September 2014, the majority of members of Congress have vowed to continue to block allocation of federal funding to the studies. In the near term it thus appears that federal legislation will not be put forward to address the need for the documentation and detailed study of such events.

There's none so blind as they who will not see. But I have hope that minds will change and that argument and appeal is worth the effort.

Studies into the prevention of such tragedies are also hampered by the freeze on federal funding for research into gun violence in the United States, put in place by Congress in 1997 [48, 49]. In January, 2013, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to resume studies into firearm violence. However, at the time of this writing in September 2014, the majority of members of Congress have vowed to continue to block allocation of federal funding to the studies.

What possible rationale is there for this?

It's the Dickey Amendment.

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association

Well there's a surprise.

Dickey has since said that he regrets his role in stopping the CDC from researching gun violence, saying he simply didn't want to "let any of those dollars go to gun control advocacy."

So it was introduced because they were afraid that gun control advocates are right?

"There is no scientific evidence that..."

QED.

:vomit:

Surely a 'civil society' is one in which you're not required to carry deadly weapons on the grounds that you're frightened that the person next to you might be doing so.

There are places that, should I be obliged to reside there, I would probably want to have a gun for defensive reasons, for example, Port Moresby. A friend recently travelled to a marine expedition was was embarking from that port, and his vehicle from the airport to his secure compound was escorted by armed guards from the prosaically-named 'Attack Dog Security'. He had had to receive a detailed briefing on personal conduct for the 36 hours he was to be in transit in Port Moresby. So there, you might want a gun. Even an AR-15.

But surely, in the 'land of the free', the fact that armed guards in schools is being seriously contemplated, is an indication of a breakdown in civil order - the basic fact that civilized behaviour is under threat in what is supposed to be the most advanced democracy in the modern world.

Despite all the obfuscation and politicking, if you can't see the threat that this represents, then you're not seeing it right.

I have provided the reason, by quoting court documents, as to why the Amendment grants an individual, and not a collective, right to own and bear arms. — Thorongil

If you attend your own words and thoughts, you will hear (read), "By quoting court documents." Exactly, the amendment doesn't grant the right; the court argument finds and grants it. Based not on the amendment - the law - but on other documents that are, finally, mere opinion. Please keep in mind that my ax, that I'm grinding, is that the 2d amendment, itself, doesn't say, concede, or grant what some people want and argue it does. The proof is in the reading. I don't know if you're familiar withMadison's Notes...., but they make clear that the text of the constitution was the result of deliberation, debate, and in places, compromise. No part of it is an accident or flight of fancy or poetry calling for interpretation. What it calls for first is understanding - exegesis, not so simple. Interpretation, meaning how does it apply 220 years later, is a different problem.

Let's suppose the 2d amendment said, "the right to own and have a gun is absolute, not to be infringed in any way by any person, or agent or act of government." That is, it created and established an absolute right, and enshrined it in the fundamental document of government. Let's suppose that.

What of it? Two points: first is the oft-repeated phrase, "It's a constitution were explicating." Second (from Justice Souter's speech, referenced above) that the constitution must be considered as a whole, and that no part can stand against the whole. Given our hypothetical amendment, we should certainly have to consider it, but if it be determined to undermine the common welfare and the security of the state, would you have the then current court ignore those twin needs in favour of an archaic principle? Or would you have them helpless to respond to current need? If you can answer yes to either, we may as well stop here.

Deputy at Florida high school where 17 were killed 'never went in,' resigns

Israel said that Deputy Scott Peterson was outside of the building during the time of the shooting. According to Israel, video evidence suggested that Peterson remained outside for four minutes. The entire mass shooting lasted an estimated six minutes, Israel said.

"Scott Peterson was absolutely on campus through this entire event," Israel said. "He was armed, he was in uniform.

Do you think that he should have gone in? I don't know much about police policy, but is a single man supposed to go alone in the case of a shooter, or is he supposed to wait for backup?

And if this deputy chose not to engage the shooter, what are the odds that a teacher wouldn't choose to engage a shooter? For all this talk about arming people in schools, how many are actually going to confront the attacker rather than just try to hide?

Arming teachers is the most moronic idea I have heard of. It's been a decade since high school for me, but I would not want my frail, 70+ mathematics teacher wielding a gun. Besides, having guns in certain classrooms means that they are accessible to students. It's such a ludicrous, backward idea; essentially demonstrating that gun rights activists lack any substantive arguments, and are just grasping at straws.

Of course the only answer is to give guns to all the students.

I quite liked the suggestion, made elsewhere, that the solution is to ban schools to protect guns. I think that would be reasonable. After all, only one of these things is protected by the constitution, and when push comes to shove...

Personally I find it unpleasant to think about living in a society where everybody is encouraged to hold guns to feel secure, and if I happen to leave it at home when going to the supermarket one day, I'm supposed to feel uncomfortable about it because I'm at a disadvantage. Maybe that's just silly me.

It's not just you, it's objectively stupid. Nothing more than NRA propaganda to 1) get more people to purchase guns, and 2) defend 2A. There are endless problems with the idea....

My thinking is it's not just about guns, but how American Conservatives think about the notion of security in general.

"The leftover consequences on other people is unfortunate but it has nothing to do with me. I have the right to fend for myself, and we should celebrate those rights. Why should I take on risk for the misbehavior of others?"

It's not about the collective but the individual. You see this kind of rhetoric all the time when it comes to military spending and intervention, not wanting to pay taxes so others that are less fortunate can be taken care of, not wanting to let refugees in, and so on. I suspect there is some rough parallel to that which prevents communication regarding guns, there is a fundamental difference in values.

It's not about the collective but the individual. — Saphsin

Indeed, the absence of a sense of common wealth isn part of the USA's problem.

I'm a gun owning American (liberal/moderate, I suppose.) Maybe I can add some perspective. I would rather live in a society where I would never need a gun. Arguably I don't need the one I have. It mostly sits in the same place, just in case. And I surely don't want the legal trouble or the publicity that would come with using it.

On the other hand, I like knowing that I have some way of protecting my little family against an extreme situation. The anti-gun argument tends to ignore that criminals aren't going to obey gun laws. I don't relish the idea of being a soft target in a society where only the police and the criminals have guns and not law abiding citizens. I happen to fear criminals more than the state, and I don't especially fear violent crime (I'm more likely to be smashed by some texting teenager's Toyota). Nevertheless, the idea of being threatened in my own home without recourse is sufficiently odious to me that I'd miss my 'nuclear option' if it were no longer there.

One of the first victims identified among the 17 people killed was Aaron Feis, an assistant football coach and security guard. Feis was shot after reportedly throwing himself in front of students during the rampage.