guns - issue 1

Kids, Teachers & Guns

With Guns Blazing

The History of Guns

More Guns or More Laws?

Under Fire

Vol. 3, Issue 1

Page 6

2

Page 14

Page 18

9

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 Hil-ton takes us inside two local schools for a look at safety measures designed to protect students from gun violence.

The History of Guns .................Page 12People 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 14The Bill of Rights, something of a coda to the U.S. Constitution, has become its most dis-cussed 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 18As 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 Inc - Issue 1 - Guns 4

Kyle GouldCorrespondent

Taylor YoungCorrespondent

Patrick HiltonCorrespondent

Elizabeth ChenardGraphic Designer

Bruno F. BattistoliExecutive Editor

Brad HickoxCorrespondent

News Ink Staff

www.issuu.com/newsink 5

The Editor’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 van-tage 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 – 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 – 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


“The intercom system is great...

By Patrick Hilton

Kids, Teachers & GunsJoe Smith, 26, of St. Johnsbury, woke up on Monday, Feb. 11, reached over to the nightstand, and grabbed the .38- caliber 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, wear-ing 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 Ver-mont law that morning. Although he is nothing more than a figment of this au-thor’s imagination, his story serves to illustrate the yawning chasm between Vermont gun laws and the current nation-al 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

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 fire-arm without needing a permit for it. Chap-ter 1, Article 16 of the Vermont Constitu-tion 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 mili-tary should be kept under strict subordina-tion to and governed by the civil power.”1

There is no permit required to pur-chase 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 dan-ger 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 stu-dents. 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 per-son hits the buzzer unlocking the door, the

Protecting Students in the Northeast Kingdom


(Photo by Patrick Hilton)

But who is at the front door after they are buzzed in making sure they go to the office?"

visitor is supposed to go directly to the front office to sign in and get a visitor’s pass. “I think the buzzer system does a really good job of screening who comes into the school,” said Lyndon Town School physical education teacher Lisa Paquette. “With all the other doors locked, it fun-nels people through one door to make sure we can know who is coming into our school. And with the intercom system in place, office person-nel can talk to visitors at the door if they ar-en’t sure who they are or why they are here.” But the sys-tem is not perfect. “The intercom system is great, and it does a good job to an extent,” said Judy Sherburne, another physical education in-structor at the school. “But who is at the front door after they are buzzed in making sure they go to the office? With the layout of the school, a dangerous person could get buzzed in and walk right past the of-fice to the left or right down a hallway and then we would have no idea where they went or what they were planning on doing.” Lyndon Town School frequently runs fire drills and “clear the halls” drills to ensure that they are prepared for the worst.

“Just a few weeks ago in January we practiced our lockdown drills,” Sher-burne said. “As soon as we heard the call over the intercom, I lined the kids up, led them to the locker room where we locked the doors and sat quietly away from the metal lockers, which could make noise if someone banged into them, and we sat in silence until we got the ‘All Clear’ from the front office. In the locker room we are away from any windows and we are

behind locked doors. And since my office is in there, I can use the phone or the Inter-net on my computer to send out a message to someone saying we are safe or that some-one is trying to get in. And since we practice these drills regular-

ly, we know what we have to do and we know how to do it. In these situations, the kids’ safety always comes first and we make sure that nothing will happen to them.” After graduating from eighth grade at Lyndon Town, students move up the hill to Lyndon Institute (“L.I.”), where they attend high school with students from several surrounding towns. There, the students enter a very differ-ent environment. Instead of one large school building, they move around a college-style campus with more than 30

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns 8(Photo by Patrick Hilton)

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 stu-dent 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, ev-ery 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 prob-lems here. Besides that, I am trained to be a teacher – not a soldier. I don’t know

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 wor-ry about their commute and their safety getting to school. When there is an in-fluenza 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 semes-ter, and I asked each one of my students if they felt safe here, and each one of them said ‘yes,’ they absolutely do,” Hil-ton said. “They feel this is a very happy, healthy community with each person’s value supported and protected here.” The school still prepares for di-saster. 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 teach-er 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)

(Photo source Google Images)

laws stop them? There are many theories on the cause of the mayhem, and how to stop it. Perhaps the real question is why it took so long to restart the gun control debate. Accord-ing to MotherJones.com, there have been at least 62 mass shootings in the Unit-ed States since 1982, with 25 occurring since 2006. Of the 143 guns the killers had in their possession, more than three-quarters were ob-

tained through legal means. The weapon of choice for most of them was a semi-au-tomatic handgun (71), with rifles (28), re-volvers (23) and shotguns (21) bringing up the rear. A full one-third (48) of those 143 weapons would be illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.2 Each of these mass murders has affected this country differently. The freshest, and perhaps deepest, wound is the Newtown Sandy Hook Elemen-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 ex-ploded anew following the shooting. Mil-lions of people around the world watched the president of the United States weep

how to properly handle a weapon like that, let alone a weapon at a school full of kids in a classroom full of kids. I don’t like that idea at all.” Sherburne sees sim-ilar problems with arming teachers. “What if I were to make a mistake,” Sherburne asks, “and take out the gun on a false alarm, or if I pull the trigger aimed at the wrong person? I couldn’t handle being responsible for the loss of a child who has their whole life in front of them. I wouldn’t be able to live like that.” But the fact remains: school shootings and mass shootings are a real threat. Will tighter regulations and guns stop those shootings, or at least prevent some of them? If someone is determined to get a gun and go on a spree, would new

Janet Dunphy-Brown

Rick Hilton, L.I. Headmaster


as he addressed the nation immediately following the shootings. Republicans, Democrats and independents agreed that something needed to change. But agree-ing on what that something was, let alone how to go about it, was another issue en-tirely. 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 overpow-er 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 mag-azines.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 ap-proval, 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-

fringed on the constitutional right to bear arms. “Nothing the president is propos-ing would have stopped the massacre at Sandy Hook,” said Marco Rubio, Repub-lican senator from Florida, widely seen as a 2016 presidential hopeful. “President Obama is targeting the Second Amend-ment rights of law-abiding citizens in-stead of seriously addressing the real un-derlying causes of such violence.” The National Rifle Associa-tion (“NRA”) released a similar state-ment: “Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law- abiding 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 obliga-tion, all of us, to try.” The general outline of the president’s plan includes four ma-


(Photo source Google Images)

jor goals: closing the background check loophole, banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, making schools safer, and increasing ac-cess 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 com-mit acts of violence cannot get access to guns,” Obama said. His plan would re-quire background checks for each and ev-ery 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

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 diag-nosable 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

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns 12(All photos on this page from Google Images)

The History of GunsBy

TaylorYoung Guns have been a part of history since

1232. As if swords, arrows, and sling-shots 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 differ-ence between survival and extinction.

Chinese scientists invented the first rocket-like weapon with tubes filled

with black gun powder, de-picted 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 can-nonballs at opposing armies. Firearms reached Europe and the Mideast by the 1380s, where they con-tinued to develop over time. Even though guns were im-proving, 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 be-came that deciding factor. Jean Bureau, the master gunner of the French artillery, directed the firing of more than 300 can-nonballs 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 Euro-pean 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 technol-ogy and manufacturing, evolving from a bulky muzzle-loading musket to a slender weapon with multiple ammunition cham-bers, making killing more easy and effi-cient. 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, be-ing necessary to the securi-ty of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be in-fringed.” The wording of this

amendment caused confusion and contro-versy that continues to this day. It begins by declaring the need of the state for a mi-litia, and only then proceeds to grant the people the right to bear arms, apparent-ly so they could serve in that militia and bring their weapons with them. If it was their primary intention to protect the indi-vidual 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


“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.”

(All photos on this page from Library of Congress)

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 built-in flash pan and self-igniting spark. Vermont passed its state consti-tution 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 pro-claimed 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 liber-ty, 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 ac-tually encourages its citizens to use firearms to protect their lands. Since this was a crucial time of Vermont es-tablishing 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 with-out a permit. The rural landscape of the Northeast Kingdom supplies Vermont-ers with forests abundant with game, and most of the gun sales in Vermont are for hunting rifles.■

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

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

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

News Inc - Issue 1 - Guns 14mi-li-tia /mə’liSHə/

Noun

By Brad Hickox

With Guns BlazingIn the raging inferno that is the debate over gun control, with flames fanned higher by the Sandy Hook school shoot-ing, 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 tech-nology 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 constitu-tional rights. The Second Amendment was writ-ten 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 Sec-ond Amendment, which was ratified with

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 Consti-tution, and has been at the center of many of the hot-button issues that have arisen since. According to the Virginia Insti-

tute’s Primer on the Consti-tutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, “Apart from the Second Amendment’s role in deterring government op-pression, the right to arms has another purpose that is every bit as important and

urgent today as it was in the 18th centu-ry. That purpose is to enable American citizens to defend themselves, not against direct oppression by the government, but against oppression from which the gov-ernment 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.”

The Deadly Road Forward From 1776


Bush

1. A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

2. A military force that engages in rebel activities.

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 Amend-ment raises more questions than it answers, which is ev-ident 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-ferent phrases. Leading off is the loaded expression,“A well regulat-ed militia.” What exactly is a well-reg-ulated 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. Unfor-tunately, 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 em-phasis on the “broadly.” The primary use for militias at the time of the Constitu-tion 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 Ameri-cans. 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 con-trolled by the states led to the formation of the National Guard.3

The second part of the amendment – “being nec-essary to the security of a free State” – comes with its

own set of sticking points, with a mod-ern equivalent. Just seven weeks after members of Al Qaeda attacked the Unit-ed 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 Ap-propriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,” was aimed to do just that. Known more com-monly as the PATRIOT Act, it is still one of the most hotly debated topics in poli-tics 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


Mason Jefferson

changed much in 200 years. But with “bear,” things get dicey again. Part four is the clearest. “Shall not be in-fringed” seems definitive, but questions still arise. If the right shall not be in-fringed, 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 Amend-ment 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 Peo-ple, 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 re-ligiously 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 de-bates, 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 own-ers could vote. Some of the Founding Fathers did

make clear statements of their positions on guns, and the amendment they draft-ed to address the issue. Two prominent Virginians spoke out. “To disarm the peo-ple 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 consis-tent 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 independent-ly, and Vermont’s militia found itself at the center of a controversy: “Vermonters reluctantly supported the War of 1812. The federal trade embar-goes stopped all legal trade with Can-ada, stunting Vermont’s commerce. War with Great Britain made Vermont a battle zone, with the Champlain Val-ley a familiar battlefield. Political par-ties again were split, with Jeffersonian Republicans in favor of war, and Feder-alists in opposition. Vermont’s governor, Federalist Martin Chittenden, Thomas’s


(All photos in this article from Google Images)

11/1/12 a Resident of Vermont can carry in the state of Oklahoma with just their State of Vermont ID and can legally pos-sess 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 fertil-izer 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 ac-knowledgment of that, and I think you don’t often get that from opponents of gun control.”8■

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 Bat-tle of Plattsburgh. Chittenden lost his bid for reelection.”6

Vermont’s present-day gun law is explicit, and very liberal, in the right-to-bear arms sense: “Except as otherwise provided by law, no town, city or incor-porated village, by ordinance, resolution or other enactment, shall directly regulate . . . the possession, ownership, transpor-tation, 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 Arizo-na and Alaska if they are 21 Years of age and can legally own a firearm. Beginning

War of 1812


What will make us safer, more or few-er 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 conver-sation in the United States. Groups like the National Rifle Association and other Second-Amendment activists have been arguing for the rights of “responsible gun owners,” 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 fire-arms to protect themselves. Meanwhile, victims of gun violence and anti-gun groups are calling for an end to the vio-lence that seems to be gripping our nation. So what makes us safer, more gun laws attempt-ing to staunch the bloodletting, or fewer restrictions on armed citizens? According to the FBI, there were approximately 16.5 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 feder-al agency that monitors the sale or own-ership 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 nation-wide. With the third most background checks, California is 30th in gun deaths. The Brady Campaign, a non prof-it 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 fire-arm 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, back-ground 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)

James Brady

More Guns or More Laws?No Easy Answers By Kyle Gould


nia with 81, New Jersey with 72, Mas-sachusetts with 65, and Connecticut with 58. According to death rates per 100,000, these states rank lower than states with fewer gun laws. Massachusetts ranks 49th, with 3.1 deaths per 100,000. Con-necticut ranked 48th at 4.3, New Jersey is 47th at 4.9, and New York is tied at 46th with 5.1 deaths. The top five states with the most firearm deaths per 100,000 people in 2011 were Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Arizona, and Nevada and Mis-sissippi with a tie for fifth. Both Alaska and Arizona scored the lowest na-tionwide with zero points (tied with Utah). Louisanna scored a two, and Wyoming scored a four. Washington D.C. has the highest number of gun deaths per 100,000, but the Brady Campaign did not rank its gun laws against the states. So what are the laws that make these states so radically different? Alas-ka, the state with the highest gun death rate of 20 per 100,000, has the most le-nient gun laws in the United States. In Alaska, you must be over 18 to purchase a firearm, but you do not need a permit to carry one. The only restriction is that, when asked, you must tell law enforce-ment officials whether or not you are car-rying a firearm. Alaska does not require permits to purchase guns, nor does it require background checks. This is a far cry from California, where gun dealers are required to have a state license, and

they must keep records of all their firearm sales. Background checks are required for all firearm purchases, except at gun shows, and that might change under the with legislation proposed by President Obama. Vermont is one of the states that the Brady Campaign gives low ratings on gun control laws, scoring a six out of 100. While this is one of the lowest scores, Vermont ranks 34th in gun deaths per 100,000. New Hampshire, which also received a score of six, ranks 45th in gun deaths per 100,000.

Three recent killings in the North-east Kingdom demonstrate that guns aren’t always the weapon of choice for murderers. On the night of March 26, 2012, St. Johnsbury Academy teacher Melissa Jenkins was taken from her car and stran-gled, and her body was dumped in

the Connecticut River. Alan Prue and his wife Patricia have been charged with the murder. On Dec. 28, 2010, Benjamin Ber-wick fatally stabbed his ex-wife, Anna, in the parking lot of the Green Mountain Mall in St. Johnsbury. Berwick has since plead guilty and is currently serving 18 years in prison. In October 2008, Christo-pher Gray, 25, of Groton, was stabbed and strangled to death in Grafton County, New Hampshire. Four people were sentenced for the crime. While these three incidents don’t represent all murders in Vermont and New Hampshire, where guns laws are among the least restrictive in the na-

Continued on page 22

Melissa Jenkins

Alan & Patricia Prue


? ?

?

?

? ? ? ? ?

?

?

?

? ? ? ? ?

?

?

?

?

? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ?? ? ? ? 25.8

?

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

? ? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

4.3

3.3

.8

11.3

4.1

.3

8.3

4.6

4.7

.1

1.3

1.4

?? ? ? ??? ? ? ? ?10.3

? ? ? 2.1

3.2

.9

1.3

2.1

2.2

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?4.3

4.4

? ?? ?? ? 5.1

AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouri

Gun DeathsPer 100,000

Background ChecksPer 100,000

16.2

20

18

12.3

17.3

19.5

3.1

10.9

6

16.3

9.8

11.5

4.3

9.1

11.1

13.4

2.8

12.3

9.7

11.7

6.7

9.7

13.1

6.5

11.5

2.4

2.3

Stat

istic

s fro

m st

atem

aste

r.com


?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

1.3

1.4

1.4

1.2

.8

.8

.8

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

3.3

3.6

2.6

? ? ? ? ? 4.8

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

6.2

5.2

?

?

?

?

? ? ???

?

? ? ?9.6? .2

3? .8

?? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ? ? 14.3

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

2.3

2.2

.3?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

4.4

4.6

? ?? ?? ? 5.1

.6

9.1

9.3

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

Gun DeathsPer 100,000

18.8

14.7

8.1

9.7

9.6

11.1

9.3

15.4

11

13.8

7.9

13.1

10.5

9.9

5.1

13.6

16.6

17.3

5.8

4.9

5.1

14.5

8.1

Background ChecksPer 100,000


tion, it shows that even in states with very liberal gun laws people will still com-mit 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 Inju-ry 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 ho-micides 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 asso-ciation.” Perhaps the only thing that is clear in the argument over guns is that it re-mains unclear what will make us safer, more for fewer guns.■

local,” and there may be no issue more local than gun control. The decisions that are made regarding it will be felt in thou-sands of schools across America, includ-ing 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 Dun-phy-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 mid-dle 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.”■

Continued from page 11 Continued from page 19


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%201332b.jpg4. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA

Brad Hickox Sources1. http://blog.al.com/brea ing/2012/12/key_us_supreme_court_decisions_1.html2. http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pu lications/primer_on_const.php#c83. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia4. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW 107publ56.pdf5. http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_hr.txt6. http://www.vermonthistory.org/fre dom_and_unity/new_frontier/1812.html7. http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/vermont.pdf)Patrick Hilton Sources

1. http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/vermont.aspx2. http://www.motherjones.com/pol tics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map3. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=89556104. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/gun-laws-battle/index.html5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Kyle Gould Sources1. 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-listb3. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

q w e r t y u i o p a s d f g h j k l z x c v b n m , p 2 3 4 5 7 9[ ] ; ' , . o 9 / . ̀0 9 k \ j h l s d t 4 6 9 m . / z q / . , ] [ i ] o g s b

guns - issue 1

Documents

issue guns

fewer guns

gun control debate

gun violence

gun enthusiasts

gun control rages

local schools

focal point