Posted on 02/18/2003 6:56:04 AM PST by tarawa
Panel of professors talks about gun use, abuse and regulation
By ROGER H. AYLWORTH - Staff Writer In a forum that was far less contentious than even the participants apparently anticipated, a trio of Chico State University professors discussed "the right to bear arms in the era of school shootings."
The forum, which was sponsored Thursday night on campus by the Center for Applied and Professional Ethics, kicked off with Andrew Flescher, director of CAPE, and a professor of religion, casting the discussion against the backdrop of the Dec. 13 incident where an eighth-grade honors student at Chico Junior High School brought a gun she had stolen from her mother's safe to class.
Flescher said that "thanks to some savvy handling," the incident ended with nobody getting hurt.
However, that was about the last time school shootings made it to the discussion table because Rick Ruddell, a criminologist teaching in the political science department, said the concern about school shootings is a "misplaced priority."
Ruddell said, popular opinion aside, statistics show the number of murders in schools has remained stable over the years. He said the average annual homicide rate in schools stayed at about 31 between 1992 and 1999.
The professor added that any murder is one too many, but 31 deaths compared to 52.6 million students in schools means a child is 70 times more likely to be killed away from school than in school.
He also said overall, gun-related murders nationwide have dropped about 20 percent between 1992 and 1996.
Ruddell claimed statistics show that murder is actually an urban phenomena.
More than half of all the murders that occur nationwide take place in 63 cities that together account for only 16 percent of the U.S. population, according to Ruddell.
He also said there are myths about gun regulation that simply are not true.
There is an oft-repeated claim that teddy bears have more regulation than firearms, but Ruddell said to make that true, one would have to ignore 20,000 laws related to guns.
Beyond that, the professor claimed that any discussion of the banning of handguns as a tool to halt crime must deal with the fact that there are roughly 240 million guns already in the hands of Americans.
Troy Jollimore, a professor in the philosophy department, said he was put on the discussion panel to be the one in favor of gun control, and while he can defend the idea of gun regulation, he is unwilling to advocate the banning of all firearms.
He said all too often, gun-ban advocates take the position that "there is something morally wrong about owning guns or shooting guns."
He said these same people claim guns appeal to the base side of human nature.
Jollimore said there are a number of things he enjoys that others might claim appeal to the base side of human nature, and said this approach to the issue of gun control is a bad argument.
He also said gun opponents who take the position that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which codifies the right to keep and bear arms, is out of date.
He claimed a recent poll of Americans found 50 percent felt the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech, assembly, freedom of religion and of the press, goes too far.
Jollimore said any effort by anyone to weaken some aspect of the Constitution weakens all aspects of the Constitution and threatens all our freedoms.
He said gun control advocates should lobby for regulation, and he said he thinks by going for some regulations, there would be less conflict than there is when an outright ban is proposed.
Peter Gross, a journalism professor and the third member of the three-person panel, said the central issue was one of freedom.
He claimed the idea of gun control is largely spurred on by an elite group of individuals who want to limit the freedom of gun owners for the "greater good."
He charged that most Americans who want to give away some other person's freedom for a greater good, "have no idea what freedom is."
"I don't really care whether there is a Second Amendment because I think in a free society, I ought to have the right to have a gun," said Gross.
He said the idea that "millions, tens of millions of gun owners should be disarmed because some people, mostly criminals, will hurt someone, or people will commit suicide with them" is an unreasonable loss of freedom for a vast majority because of the acts of a minority.
Gross described the process of letting an elite group chip away at the freedoms of the majority as a "slippery slope, and, by the way, we are on it."
Gee, this says quite alot, doesn't it?
Hard to believe it was simply mentioned in passing.
Regards
I'd like to see that study. Is it the First Amendment that goes to far or the court's interpretation of it? Free speech includes, according to the courts, flag burning, public defecation on flag and public smut. If this 50% figure is indeed accurate we may be in deeper doodoo than I would like to think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.