Guns - Issue 1 by NewsINK

Under Fire The

History of Guns Page 12

With Guns Blazing

Kids, Teachers & Guns Page 6

Page 14

More Guns or More Laws? Page 18

Vol. 3, Issue 1

Contents Kids, Teachers & Guns...............Page 6

“All politics is local,” says the axiom, and none is more local than schools, which have become a focal point in the gun control debate. The names “Newtown” and “Columbine” will be forever linked to unspeakable tragedy. Business Administration major Patrick Hilton takes us inside two local schools for a look at safety measures designed to protect students from gun violence.

The History of Guns.................. Page 12

People have been seeking new and improved ways of killing each other since they began to walk upright, and no single invention has been more helpful in that endeavor than the gun. Electronic Journalism Arts major Taylor Young explores the history of man’s most deadly invention.

With Guns Blazing.................... Page 14

The Bill of Rights, something of a coda to the U.S. Constitution, has become its most discussed and adjudicated component. Gun enthusiasts claim the Second Amendment as their own, while advocates of gun control argue that it means something else entirely. Television Studies major Brad Hickox explores the language of the law.

More Guns or More Laws?...... Page 18

As the debate over gun control rages in the wake of the Newtown massacre, a fundamental question remains unanswered: Will more guns or fewer guns make us safer? Television Studies major Kyle Gould examines the statistics beneath the rhetoric.

News Ink Staff

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

Patrick Hilton Correspondent

Elizabeth Chenard Graphic Designer

Taylor Young Correspondent

Kyle Gould Correspondent

Bruno F. Battistoli Executive Editor

Brad Hickox Correspondent

The Editorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Note In these pages, you will find the writing of talented student journalists at the Vermont Center for Community Journalism, exploring the world and their place in it from the unique vantage point of the Northeast Kingdom. In this issue, they bring a fresh perspective to one of the most pressing issues before us gun violence, and how to protect our children from it. Proponents on both sides of the debate would have us believe the answer is simple â&#x20AC;&#x201C; either more guns, and more freedom to buy, own and carry them, or fewer guns, and less freedom to buy, own and carry them. These writers reveal the complexity of the issue, and the challenges we face as a nation struggling to address it. Americans have been using guns to kill themselves and others with increasing efficiency for generations. There is at least one point of agreement between the two sides of the gun control debate: Everyone wants fewer deaths from guns. The challenge is how we get there. In the digital age, detailed information is available in a few keystrokes on virtually any subject of interest, including that of this issue â&#x20AC;&#x201C; guns. But in that vast cloud of information, it is sometimes difficult to find real insight. The writings of these student journalists suggest that their insights, and those of their fellow students across America, can provide a fresh perspective on seemingly intractable issues.

Bruno F. Battistoli www.issuu.com/newsink

Kids, Teachers & Guns Protecting Students in the Northeast Kingdom

Joe Smith, 26, of St. Johnsbury, woke

up on Monday, Feb. 11, reached over to the nightstand, and grabbed the .38caliber snub-nose revolver he always kept loaded by his bed. He swung his feet to the floor and strapped the gun to his leg in its ankle holster. He went into the living room and took a 12-guage shotgun and an AR-15 assault rifle from his gun cabinet and laid them on the couch behind him. He took a box of shotgun shells and two clips for the AR-15 and put them in a small bag. He called up to his daughter, “Honey, it’s time to go to school.” Sue Smith, 8, came bounding down the stairs, wearing a jacket and backpack. Joe picked up the guns and ammo bag, and when they got to the car, he put them on the back seat. They made the five-minute drive to Sue’s elementary school. Joe parked on the street, just down from the school entrance. Sue gave him a hug and jumped out of the car to join her friends entering the old brick building. Smith did not break a single Vermont law that morning. Although he is nothing more than a figment of this author’s imagination, his story serves to illustrate the yawning chasm between Vermont gun laws and the current national debate about gun control. President Barack Obama is at the forefront of that debate, proposing new laws that would make many aspects of Smith’s morning routine illegal. Vermont boasts some of

By Patrick Hilton

the most liberal gun laws in the country. Firearms enthusiasts across the nation use the term “Vermont Carry,” because in the state of Vermont you can carry any firearm without needing a permit for it. Chapter 1, Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution states: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State - as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”1 There is no permit required to purchase rifles, shotguns or handguns. There are no requirements to register, license or carry those firearms. There are also no laws in place that say you cannot conceal these weapons. Although this has been the norm in Vermont for more than 200 years, schoolteachers and officials see the danger in such loose gun laws. With schools becoming an increasing popular target for shootings and mass killings, their concern seems justified. Lyndon Town School is located on the outskirts of downtown Lyndonville, a K-8 school of a little more than 400 students. Security has been ramped up. All exterior doors are locked, and the front door is controlled by a buzzer system with an intercom connection to the main office. When a visitor buzzes the intercom, the camera at the front door plays back on a monitor in the front office. If a staff person hits the buzzer unlocking the door, the

“The intercom system is great... News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

visitor is supposed to go directly to the “Just a few weeks ago in January front office to sign in and get a visitor’s we practiced our lockdown drills,” Sherpass. burne said. “As soon as we heard the call “I think the buzzer system does a over the intercom, I lined the kids up, led really good job of screening who comes them to the locker room where we locked into the school,” said Lyndon Town School the doors and sat quietly away from the physical education teacher Lisa Paquette. metal lockers, which could make noise if “With all the other doors locked, it funsomeone banged into them, and we sat in nels people through one door to make silence until we got the ‘All Clear’ from sure we can know who is coming into our the front office. In the locker room we school. And with the intercom system in are away from any windows and we are place, office personbehind locked doors. nel can talk to visitors And since my office at the door if they aris in there, I can use en’t sure who they are the phone or the Interor why they are here.” net on my computer But the systo send out a message tem is not perfect. to someone saying we “The intercom are safe or that somesystem is great, and one is trying to get in. it does a good job to And since we practice an extent,” said Judy these drills regular(Photo by Patrick Hilton) Sherburne, another physical education inly, we know what we have to do and we structor at the school. “But who is at the know how to do it. In these situations, front door after they are buzzed in making the kids’ safety always comes first and sure they go to the office? With the layout we make sure that nothing will happen to of the school, a dangerous person could them.” get buzzed in and walk right past the of After graduating from eighth fice to the left or right down a hallway grade at Lyndon Town, students move and then we would have no idea where up the hill to Lyndon Institute (“L.I.”), they went or what they were planning on where they attend high school with doing.” students from several surrounding towns. Lyndon Town School frequently There, the students enter a very differruns fire drills and “clear the halls” drills ent environment. Instead of one large to ensure that they are prepared for the school building, they move around a worst. college-style campus with more than 30

But who is at the front door after they are buzzed in making sure they go to the office?" www.issuu.com/newsink

buildings. “When one is responsible for the lives and safety of 600 adolescents, there is always something to fear, always something to worry about,” said Rick Hilton, headmaster at L.I. [no relation to the author]. “When it snows, we worry about their commute and their safety getting to school. When there is an influenza epidemic, we have closed down the school to stop the spread of disease. When one is working with students, one is always working. The world is a dangerous place.” Hilton said they work to create a safe atmosphere. “I’m teaching a class this semester, and I asked each one of my students if they felt safe here, and each one of them said ‘yes,’ they absolutely do,” Hilton said. “They feel this is a very happy, healthy community with each person’s value supported and protected here.” The school still prepares for disaster. Much like Lyndon Town School, Lyndon Institute practices their fire and security drills each month. The drills are very similar: get all of the kids to safety as soon as possible, and make sure that a dangerous person cannot get into a room full of students. Every month they drill for just that type of situation. Math teacher Janet Dunphy-Brown said that during the drills, the students all sit quietly away from the windows and doors and wait for the signal to come over the phone, letting

(Photo by Patrick Hilton)

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

them know the situation is secure and the threat is eliminated. So far, they haven’t had to use the drills they practice. But they haven’t been free of disruptive, even scary, incidents. “We have a very special, very protective community,” Dunphy-Brown said. “I’ve had students get right in my face and tell me to ‘F off!’ and make other threats, but in those cases it was always one student who was acting up and the remainder of the class calling out that student to protect the teacher. Not everybody likes me and not everyone will, but we have that type of community where one person acts out and the rest are there to stand up for what is right. I know that if a student were to attack me or hurt me, every other student in the class would come to help.” There has been widespread debate on whether teachers should have guns at school as a means of protection from outside threats. The general consensus of teachers at Lyndon Town School and Lyndon Institute is that it would cause more problems than it would prevent. “Just having a gun in a room full of kids would make me uncomfortable,” Dunphy-Brown said. “What if someone or a group of students overpowers the teacher and steals the gun, or somehow manages to get it out of the locked case it is in? Then we would have huge problems here. Besides that, I am trained to be a teacher – not a soldier. I don’t know

laws stop them? how to properly handle a Janet Dunphy-Brown There are many theories weapon like that, let alone on the cause of the mayhem, a weapon at a school full of and how to stop it. Perhaps kids in a classroom full of the real question is why it kids. I don’t like that idea at took so long to restart the all.” gun control debate. Accord Sherburne sees siming to MotherJones.com, ilar problems with arming there have been at least 62 teachers. mass shootings in the Unit “What if I were to ed States since 1982, with make a mistake,” Sherburne 25 occurring since 2006. Of asks, “and take out the gun the 143 guns the killers had on a false alarm, or if I pull in their possession, more the trigger aimed at the than three-quarters were obwrong person? I couldn’t (Photo by Patrick Hilton) tained through legal means. The weapon handle being responsible for the loss of a of choice for most of them was a semi-auchild who has their whole life in front of tomatic handgun (71), with rifles (28), rethem. I wouldn’t be able to live like that.” volvers (23) and shotguns (21) bringing But the fact remains: school up the rear. A full one-third (48) of those shootings and mass shootings are a real 143 weapons would be illegal under the threat. Will tighter regulations and guns Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.2 stop those shootings, or at least prevent some of them? If someone is determined Each of these mass murders has to get a gun and go on a spree, would new affected this country differently. The freshest, and perhaps deepest, wound Rick Hilton, is the Newtown Sandy Hook ElemenL.I. Headmaster tary school shooting, which occurred at about 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 14, 2012. Six adults and 20 children between the ages of 6 and 7 were killed by a lone gunman. The shooter entered the school with three semi-automatic weapons: two handguns and a rifle. The gun control debate exploded anew following the shooting. Millions of people around the world watched the president of the United States weep (Photo source Google Images)

www.issuu.com/newsink

as he addressed the nation immediately following the shootings. Republicans, Democrats and independents agreed that something needed to change. But agreeing on what that something was, let alone how to go about it, was another issue entirely. The state of New York was the first to act. Already having some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a new package of firearm and mental health regulations. “You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and common sense,” Cuomo said, just before signing the bill.3 But where does that leave the rest of the country? On Jan.16, President Obama proposed background checks on all gun sales and bans on military style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.4 Joined by some of the relatives of the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook, the president signed 23 executive orders, which do not require congressional approval, to strengthen gun and mental health laws. In addition, he called on congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban that it had allowed to expire in 2004, which would restrict magazine capacity to no more than 10 rounds, and to make background checks mandatory for both public and private sales. The political pushback was strong and immediate. Republicans rejected Obama’s proposals, arguing that they in-

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

fringed on the constitutional right to bear arms. “Nothing the president is proposing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook,” said Marco Rubio, Republican senator from Florida, widely seen as a 2016 presidential hopeful. “President Obama is targeting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens instead of seriously addressing the real underlying causes of such violence.” The National Rifle Association (“NRA”) released a similar statement: “Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, lawabiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitably of more tragedy.”4 One thing is clear: neither side of the issue wants another disaster. No one wants to see another school shooting, or any mass shooting. Republicans (and most certainly the NRA) do not want to see their constitutional rights infringed upon, and bills that seem to challenge the present popular interpretations of the Second Amendment have very little chance of passage. But President Obama is determined that something be done. “We won’t be able to stop every violent act,” he said, “but if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation, all of us, to try.” The general outline of the president’s plan includes four ma-

jor goals: closing the background check loophole, banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. “The single most important thing we can do to prevent gun violence and mass shootings, like the one in Newtown, is to make sure those who would commit acts of violence cannot get access to guns,” Obama said. His plan would require background checks for each and every gun sale, private or public. Expanded background checks are sought to ensure that people who are dangers to society cannot get access to guns.4 Another key aspect to Obama’s gun control plan is school safety. “We need to make our schools safer, not only by enhancing their physical security and making sure they are prepared to respond

(Photo source Google Images)

www.issuu.com/newsink

to emergencies like a mass shooting, but also by creating safer and more nurturing school climates that help prevent school violence,” Obama said. His plan calls for up to 1,000 more school resource officers and counselors. The last part of Obama’s call to action involves the mental health aspect of guns and gun control. “We are going to need to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun,” he said. His plan states that less than half of children and adults with diagnosable mental health problems receive the treatment they need. It would treat more children and adults with mental health issues, while keeping that health care available even after the child leaves school, where the care is provided most easily.5 It is often said that “all politics is

Continued on page 22

The History of Guns By Taylor Young

Guns have been a part of history since

1232. As if swords, arrows, and slingshots weren’t harmful enough, people were constantly trying to find better ways to take one another out. As conflicts between nations began to arise, the invention of the best weapon meant the difference between survival and extinction. Chinese scientists invented the first rocket-like weapon with tubes filled with black gun powder, depicted in ancient sculptures with fire exiting long rustic barrels. This allowed them to kill their enemies from afar. The first use of a firearm was recorded in 1364. This V-shaped invention quickly developed into a 7.6-pound bronze rifle strong enough to hurl cannonballs at opposing armies. Firearms reached Europe and the Mideast by the 1380s, where they continued to develop over time. Even though guns were improving, killing was still less effective due to the inaccuracy of the weapons. It was a “shoot and pray” method, and these weapons were not the deciding factor in battles. It wasn’t until 1453, during the last battle of the Hundred Year War, at Castillon in Gascony, that firearms became that deciding factor. Jean Bureau, the master gunner of the French artillery, directed the firing of more than 300 cannonballs at his English opponents, and managed to kill their commanding officer

and hundreds of his men. This was a turning point in the implementation of guns in warfare. During the 17th century, the European explorers and settlers brought their weapons with them to the New World, where they quickly found their way into the hands of Native Americans, who used them very effectively in hunting and in warfare. The rifle improved with advancements in technology and manufacturing, evolving from a bulky muzzle-loading musket to a slender weapon with multiple ammunition chambers, making killing more easy and efficient. The Founding Fathers addressed the rights of gun ownership in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, passed, in 1791, which reads, “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.” The wording of this amendment caused confusion and controversy that continues to this day. It begins by declaring the need of the state for a militia, and only then proceeds to grant the people the right to bear arms, apparently so they could serve in that militia and bring their weapons with them. If it was their primary intention to protect the individual right to bear arms, of and by itself, why did they state it second, and not first? More than two hundred years later, that question remains unanswered. Perhaps it

(All photos on this page from Google Images)

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

never will be. Guns made their way up to the east from the first settlements on the shores of Massachusetts into the green mountains of Vermont. John Hills was the first recorded Vermont settler to own a firearm. His gun collection included a variety of hunting and target rifles, as well as a weapon used by militia during the Civil War, a flintlock rifle with a builtin flash pan and self-igniting spark. Vermont passed its state constitution in 1777. Its main purpose was to declare Vermont’s independence from Great Britain’s reign (it didn’t ratify the U.S. Constitution until 1791). It also proclaimed the rights of its citizens to their weapons: “The people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by civil power.” Unlike many other states during this period, Vermont’s amendment actually encourages its citizens to use firearms to protect their lands. Since this was a crucial time of Vermont establishing its independence, protecting the land from outsiders became a first priority. To this day, Vermont is one of the gun-friendliest states in the union. Almost anyone can buy a gun without a permit. The rural landscape of the Northeast Kingdom supplies Vermonters with forests abundant with game, and most of the gun sales in Vermont are for hunting rifles.■

“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.”

Soldiers standing next to their rifle guns in Pine Ridge Agency, Jan. 18th, 1891.

Specimens of ancient and modern Chinese shells captured by the Allied Forces, Tien-tsin, China

John Ignacek runs the production of .45caliber pistols in a manufacturing plant of firearms. This plant produced pistols, machine guns and other weapons for the armed forces.

(All photos on this page from Library of Congress)

www.issuu.com/newsink

With Guns Blazing The Deadly Road Forward From 1776

By Brad Hickox

In the raging inferno that is the debate

over gun control, with flames fanned higher by the Sandy Hook school shooting, an important question has yet to be answered: What exactly does the Second Amendment mean? Each side argues that gun control is right or wrong, that it’s a black and white issue, with no shades of gray. But for a very short document – just 27 words – the Second Amendment is filled with ambiguity. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” said Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”1 Those who favor increased gun control argue that modern weapons technology has changed the landscape, and that there needs to be a new system of regulation for gun distribution and use. Conversely, those who see gun control as a violation of their right to bear arms say that this is just the latest step in a process of stripping Americans of their constitutional rights. The Second Amendment was written more than 200 years ago, so asking the Founding Fathers about their thoughts on the current situation isn’t an option. Much has changed since the passage of the Second Amendment, which was ratified with

mi-li-tia News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

the rest of the Bill of Rights on Dec. 15, 1791 – four years after the Constitutional Convention. At the time of its ratification, the Bill of Rights was a document that sought to tie up any sort of loose ends that weren’t explicitly covered by the Constitution, and has been at the center of many of the hot-button issues that have arisen since. According to the Virginia Institute’s Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, “Apart from the Second Amendment’s role in deterring government oppression, the right to arms has another purpose that is every bit as important and urgent today as it was in the 18th century. That purpose is to enable American citizens to defend themselves, not against direct oppression by the government, but against oppression from which the government fails to protect them.”2 Although it’s only one sentence long, the Second Amendment contains many words and phrases that are subject to broad interpretation. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” is one of those phrases. Our language is different today. But at the time it was written, what did that actually mean? Is the right to keep and bear arms the exact same thing as gun ownership, or did that meaning change over the past two centuries? Whatever it means, this right “shall not be infringed.”

Noun

/mə’liSHə/

That’s about as clear as it gets, but at this point, we’re not even sure what it is that shan’t be infringed. The Second Amendment raises more questions than it answers, which is evident in all of the different arguments that get brought up in both its defense and criticism. It can be evenly broken down into four dif- Bush ferent phrases. Leading off is the loaded expression,“A well regulated militia.” What exactly is a well-regulated militia? Does an organized coup by members of the armed forces qualify as a well-regulated militia? What about an entire state marching on the White House, or 30 angry voters? What defines well-regulated? Better yet, who regulates it? If the answer is the government, then that brings us back to square one. Unfortunately, this disagreement has polarized Americans even further than they were before this issue arose. A militia is broadly defined as a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers – with emphasis on the “broadly.” The primary use for militias at the time of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was as a check on government power. The country was still trying to establish its independence, and was also battling hostile Native Americans. Militias were useful to government

in those efforts. And their usefulness lasted through the 19th century as well, with militias playing important roles in the War of 1812 and the Civil War. Militias controlled by the states led to the formation of the National Guard.3 The second part of the amendment – “being necessary to the security of a free State” – comes with its own set of sticking points, with a modern equivalent. Just seven weeks after members of Al Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11, President George W. Bush signed legislation into law that was designed to protect the security of the country. Public Law 107–56 of the 107th Congress, titled,“The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” was aimed to do just that. Known more commonly as the PATRIOT Act, it is still one of the most hotly debated topics in politics more than 10 years later.4 Part three of the Second Amendment is the most easily recognized. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” is the focal argument that any pro-gun advocate will cite. But what does “bear arms” even mean? Is it tantamount to the right to own and fire guns? The verb “keep” seems simple enough – its meaning likely hasn’t

1. A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency. 2. A military force that engages in rebel activities. www.issuu.com/newsink

changed much in 200 years. But with “bear,” things get dicey again. Part four is the clearest. “Shall not be infringed” seems definitive, but questions still arise. If the right shall not be infringed, whose job is it to make sure that there is no infringement? And who is it that isn’t supposed to be infringing these rights? Is it the people, the government, or everyone? What are the punishments for infringing upon these rights? Not only the language, but the very name and number of the Second Amendment changed between the time it was passed by the House and when it became law. At the time it passed the House, the Fifth Amendment read: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”5 Much of the wording is similar, but the last portion of the original text was omitted. As with many other current debates, people argue that modern times have changed the relevance of certain long-accepted laws and traditions. After all, they argue, the Founding Fathers were slaveholders, and the same Constitution that contains the Second Amendment also stated that only white male property owners could vote. Some of the Founding Fathers did

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

Mason

Jefferson

make clear statements of their positions on guns, and the amendment they drafted to address the issue. Two prominent Virginians spoke out. “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them,” said George Mason. And Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” The Vermont state constitution is consistent with the Second Amendment, stating in Article 16 that, “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.” By the time the War of 1812, states began to operate more independently, and Vermont’s militia found itself at the center of a controversy: “Vermonters reluctantly supported the War of 1812. The federal trade embargoes stopped all legal trade with Canada, stunting Vermont’s commerce. War with Great Britain made Vermont a battle zone, with the Champlain Valley a familiar battlefield. Political parties again were split, with Jeffersonian Republicans in favor of war, and Federalists in opposition. Vermont’s governor, Federalist Martin Chittenden, Thomas’s

son, caused a stir when he recalled the Vermont militia from New York in 1813, where it was supporting federal troops. He believed the militia was needed in Vermont. The militia officers refused Chittenden’s order to return immediately, stating that they were needed to defend the Union, and criticized Chittenden for playing politics. The Vermont militia returned to New York in 1814 and played a key role in America’s victory at the Battle of Plattsburgh. Chittenden lost his bid for reelection.”6 Vermont’s present-day gun law is explicit, and very liberal, in the rightto-bear arms sense: “Except as otherwise provided by law, no town, city or incorporated village, by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate . . . the possession, ownership, transportation, transfer, sale, purchase, carrying, licensing or registration of . . . firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition. Vermont does not issue Permit/Licenses to Carry a Concealed firearm. Vermont does allow anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry it concealed without a permit of any kind. 16 years old . . . is the minimum age for possessing and transporting a handgun. Anyone who can legally own a firearm can carry it concealed in Vermont with no permit/license of any kind. Vermont Residents can carry in the states of Arizona and Alaska if they are 21 Years of age and can legally own a firearm. Beginning

11/1/12 a Resident of Vermont can carry in the state of Oklahoma with just their State of Vermont ID and can legally possess a firearm.”7 That’s what the law says, but that isn’t quite the end of the story. There are active campaigns that are attempting to find some middle ground in the debate. “You can equip a single person with enough firepower to kill an entire room, and they don’t have to rely on a fertilizer bomb,” said Vermont State Senator Philip Baruth (D-Burlington).” They can just bring a few guns and kill 50 or 60 people. That’s not defending their home from a single intruder. I want some acknowledgment of that, and I think you don’t often get that from opponents of gun control.”8■ War of 1812

(All photos in this article from Google Images)

www.issuu.com/newsink

More Guns or More Laws? No Easy Answers

By Kyle Gould

What will make us safer, more or fewer guns? This question has been debated for years, and with the tragic shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, they have reached the forefront of the conversation in the United States. Groups like the National Rifle Association and other Second-Amendment activists have been arguing for the rights of â&#x20AC;&#x153;responsible gun owners,â&#x20AC;? and seem intent in blocking any anti-gun legislation. Pro-gun groups have been encouraging people to arm themselves. Gun stores have had lines out their doors, with people buying firearms to protect themselves. Meanwhile, victims of gun violence and anti-gun groups are calling for an end to the violence that seems to be gripping our nation. So what makes us safer, more gun laws attempting to staunch the bloodletting, or fewer restrictions on armed citizens? According to the FBI, there were approximately 16.5 James Brady million background checks performed for purchases of firearms in 2011.1 The United States has more guns per 100 residents than any country in the world. At 88.8 guns per 100 citizens, that is 30 percent more guns than second place Yemen.2 Although there is no federal agency that monitors the sale or ownership of firearms, a look at the number of background checks performed by the FBI shows how many people attempt to

purchase firearms. Vermont background check numbers, with only 34,507 in 2011, is relatively low. Compare that with the top three states: Kentucky with 2,589,358, Texas with 1,436,132 and California with 1,132,603. These numbers might suggest that these states have high murder rates. But in reality, they have lower firearm death rates than other states that had fewer purchases during that time. Kentucky, the state that performed the most background checks ranked 17th in gun deaths nationwide. With the third most background checks, California is 30th in gun deaths. The Brady Campaign, a non profit organization dedicated to gun control advocacy, has ranked each state in the United States according to how restrictive their gun laws are. Not surprisingly, states with stricter gun laws had fewer firearm deaths while states with less strict gun laws had more firearm deaths, but this was not an across-the-board trend. The Brady Campaign assesses the states gun laws in five separate categories to rank their strictness. The categories are: curbing fire arm trafficking, background checks, bans of assault weapons, child safety, guns in public places, and a category for extra credit or demerits. In total a state could receive 100 points, with zero points meaning softer gun laws, and 100 meaning strict gun laws. The states that received the most points are Califor-

(All photos in this article from Google Images)

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

nia with 81, New Jersey with 72, Masthey must keep records of all their firearm sachusetts with 65, and Connecticut with sales. Background checks are required 58. According to death rates per 100,000, for all firearm purchases, except at gun these states rank lower than states with shows, and that might change under the fewer gun laws. Massachusetts ranks with legislation proposed by President 49th, with 3.1 deaths per 100,000. ConObama. Vermont is one of the states that necticut ranked 48th at 4.3, New Jersey the Brady Campaign gives low ratings is 47th at 4.9, and New York is tied at on gun control laws, scoring a six out 46th with 5.1 deaths. The top five states of 100. While this is one of the lowest with the most firearm deaths per 100,000 scores, Vermont ranks 34th in gun deaths people in 2011 were Alaska, Louisiana, per 100,000. New Hampshire, which also Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada and Misreceived a score of six, ranks 45th in gun sissippi with a tie for fifth. Both Alaska deaths per 100,000. and Arizona scored the lowest na- Melissa Jenkins Three recent killings in the Northtionwide with zero points (tied with east Kingdom demonstrate that Utah). Louisanna scored a two, and guns arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t always the weapon of Wyoming scored a four. Washington choice for murderers. On the night D.C. has the highest number of gun of March 26, 2012, St. Johnsbury deaths per 100,000, but the Brady Academy teacher Melissa Jenkins Campaign did not rank its gun laws was taken from her car and stranAlan & Patricia Prue against the states. gled, and her body was dumped in So what are the laws that make the Connecticut River. Alan Prue and his these states so radically different? Alaswife Patricia have been charged with the ka, the state with the highest gun death murder. On Dec. 28, 2010, Benjamin Berrate of 20 per 100,000, has the most lewick fatally stabbed his ex-wife, Anna, nient gun laws in the United States. In in the parking lot of the Green Mountain Alaska, you must be over 18 to purchase Mall in St. Johnsbury. Berwick has since a firearm, but you do not need a permit plead guilty and is currently serving 18 to carry one. The only restriction is that, years in prison. In October 2008, Christowhen asked, you must tell law enforcepher Gray, 25, of Groton, was stabbed and ment officials whether or not you are carstrangled to death in Grafton County, New rying a firearm. Alaska does not require Hampshire. Four people were sentenced permits to purchase guns, nor does it for the crime. While these three incidents require background checks. This is a far donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t represent all murders in Vermont cry from California, where gun dealers and New Hampshire, where guns laws are required to have a state license, and are among the least restrictive in the na-

Continued on page 22

www.issuu.com/newsink

Statistics from statemaster.com

Gun Deaths

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

Per 100,000

Background Checks Per 100,000

16.2

16.3

9.8

11.5

4.3

3.3 2.4

11.1

13.4

12.3

? ?

6.7

9.7

? ? ?

? ?

8.3 4.6

? ?

10.3

1.4 2.1 ? ?

4.7

? ? ?

? ?

25.8 3.2

6.5

11.5

3.1

10.9

17.3

12.3

1.3 ?

19.5

4.1

? ?

? 11.3

11.7

13.1

2.3

2.8

9.1

9.7

4.3

.9 1.3 2.1

4.3 4.4 ?

2.2 5.1

Gun Deaths

Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming www.issuu.com/newsink

Per 100,000

Background Checks Per 100,000

14.5

8.1

17.3

5.8

4.9

16.6

5.1

13.6

9.1

1.3 .8 1.4 1.2 .8

13.1

10.5

9.9

9.3

5.1

13.8

7.9

15.4

? ?

9.7

9.6

1.4 ?

4.8

6.2 3.6 2.6

9.6 .2

3 .8

? ? ?

? ?

? ? ?

? ?

? ? ?

5.2 14.3

2.3

9.3

14.7

8.1

18.8

11.1

3.3

.3 4.4 ?

5.1 2.2

4.6 .6

Continued from page 11 local,” and there may be no issue more local than gun control. The decisions that are made regarding it will be felt in thousands of schools across America, including one in our own backyard, the Lyndon Institute, where they wonder, as we all do, where it is going, and where it will end. “Realistically, we could put in the cameras and we could have every door locked,” said math teacher Janet Dunphy-Brown. “But I think that detracts from the community feel of this school in return. You want a certain environment for your students. We are not in the middle of downtown New York City where people are having metal detectors and armed guards at our school. Would we be safer? Yes. But is it worth doing that here, knowing it would detract from the overall feel of safety that the kids already have here? I don’t think so.”■

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns

Continued from page 19 tion, it shows that even in states with very liberal gun laws people will still commit violent crimes with or without guns. A study released in March 2013 by JAMA Internal Medicine (Journal of the American Medical Association) explored the relationship between gun laws and the number of gun deaths nationally. The study was based on data from the Centers for Disease Control, the Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), and the Brady Campaign. JAMA concluded that, “A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually.”3 However, the data show that this is not true for every state. States such as New Hampshire and South Dakota not only have less restrictive gun laws, but also relatively few gun deaths. On the other hand, California, Maryland and Michigan all have more restrictive gun laws and more gun deaths. While the JAMA study does show a correlation between more gun laws and gun deaths, the writers of this study acknowledge its limitations, stating that “more studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.” Perhaps the only thing that is clear in the argument over guns is that it remains unclear what will make us safer, more for fewer guns.■

Taylor Young Sources 1. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o9 mzL8OM4M/ULkD7P-iU5I/ AAAAAAAAAKE/QRI6gk2U66M/ s1600/Apache_chieff_Geronimo_ (right)_and_his_warriors_in_1886. jpg 2. http://redbudteaco.com/images/ products/gr_formosa%20gunpowder. jpg 3. http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/ cannon/Chinese%20cannon%20 1332b.jpg 4. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA Patrick Hilton Sources 1. http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/ state-laws/vermont.aspx 2. http://www.motherjones.com/pol tics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map 3. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/ story?section=news/national_ world&id=8955610 4. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/ politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html 5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_ time_full.pdf

www.issuu.com/newsink

Brad Hickox Sources 1. http://blog.al.com/brea ing/2012/12/key_us_supreme_court_ decisions_1.html 2. http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pu lications/primer_on_const.php#c8 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/militia 4. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW 107publ56.pdf 5. http://www.constitution.org/bor/ amd_hr.txt 6. http://www.vermonthistory.org/fre dom_and_unity/new_frontier/1812. html 7. http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/ vermont.pdf) Kyle Gould Sources 1. http://www.reuters.com/a ticle/2012/01/05/us-usa-fir arms-backgroundchecks-idU TRE80407P20120105 2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/ datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-hom cides-ownership-world-listb 3. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/ article.aspx?articleid=1661390

qwertyu i o p a s d f g h j k l z x c vbnm,p 234579 [ ] ; ' , . o9/.` 0 9 k \ j h l s d t 4 6 9m./z q / . , ] [ i]ogsb