9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

That's what I love about Dakka. Everyone is an expert in Constitutional Law and they're not afraid to prove it.

Spoiler:

**Kilkrazy**

Seaward wrote:

... ...

It is, however, impossible to look into that when one side is trying to pass off, "Barrel shrouds alter .223 terminal ballistics and thus should be banned!" as sensible.

I am not clear how this is engaging with the issues. Instead of joining in the debate it is like standing on the sidelines heckling.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a sign that the "experts" don't have any interest in engaging with the process, in fact they want to frustrate it. This is because the pro-gun side doesn't want to help in any way something they fear might lead to gun control. It does not obviate the point that realistic classifications of guns can be made, and need to be made in order to study what weapons actually are dangerous and might be considered for legal curbs.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not clear how this is engaging with the issues. Instead of joining in the debate it is like standing on the sidelines heckling.

How can you have a coherent debate when one side doesn't want to explain precisely what the debate is about?

I think you're making some assumptions. No one wants 6,000 people killed with handguns. No one wants mass shootings. I'd be OK with having a higher level of gun control if it meant that we would meaningfully reduce the number of firearms deaths in the country. I accept that my right to free speech has some limitations, such as fraud, or fighting words, or fire in a crowded theater, or any one of the commonly accepted restrictions we need on a right in order to have a workable society. I get that.

However, that's not the debate we're having. We're having arguments about how we need to ban high capacity magazine clips despite the fact that a very, very tiny percentage of all firearms deaths per year happen with rifles, that we need to have universal background checks to combat mass shootings (that were perpetrated by people who passed background checks).

You can't realistically accept people to roll over on having their rights infringed to further a new ban that would be similar to the old one, which did virtually nothing useful by anyone's measure - it was so ineffective the Obama administration made no attempt to renew it because of it's lack of efficacy.

The inability of people who wish to ban firearms to come up with a coherent plan is an actual, real problem; it's not just gun nuts being needless pedants because they don't want to have to cede anything. Look at this petition! You can't have an honest debate with the level of vagueness that has been presented, centered around a totally undefined political term.

**Kilkrazy**

I've already explained what I think the debate needs to be about. To be clear, I am talking about the debate in this forum. If people don't think it's worth pursuing I may as well close the thread.

**Ouze**

I don't understand you, and I'm not being intentionally obtuse. I think there's an undercurrent here I'm not picking up on.

**Kilkrazy**

The point I am trying to make is that this forum is for our current members to debate issues such as gun control (in this specific thread.)

If people bring in stuff that some other people did 20 years ago as a reason for us not to debate things now, there is no point in the thread.

**Vaktathi**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
All the above being true, classifications can be made.

Yeah, they did that with the first federal AWB.

It didn't work, because the people who wrote the law had no fething clue what they were talking about.

If all the experts are on the other side of the argument, perhaps that's a sign of something.

It is a sign that the "experts" don't have any interest in engaging with the process, in fact they want to frustrate it.

Or it's a sign that one side generally doesn't really know what it's talking about and the other side is sitting there exasperated trying to point out that things that terms that are being thrown about don't really mean anything.

This is because the pro-gun side doesn't want to help in any way something they fear might lead to gun control. It does not obviate the point that realistic classifications of guns can be made, and need to be made in order to study what weapons actually are dangerous and might be considered for legal curbs.

Classifications exist. Nobody is going to argue about what the term "semi-automatic" or "bolt action" mean for example. Where people get rumphurt is when people use a term like "assault weapon" or "military grade" or "assault style" and press for legislation around said terms without them really having any meaning and being completely unused by those who actually engage in firearms activities, they're used almost exclusively by pro-guncontrol groups and media hype.

The same logic is behind the continual frustration of programmes to research gun deployment and gun violence in the USA, even extending to making it illegal to maintain a register of weapons.

Registries do exist of various sorts. There is extreme pressure against registries because there is conclusive evidence that they are both horridly maintained and eventually used to limit or take people's weapons. The NFA registry is a good example (which requires photographs, fingerprint and local chief law enforcement officer sign-off), where the ATF has been unable to maintain accurate records, including for machine guns, takes many months and sometimes in excess of a year to process transfer and permission to manufacture requests, and said registry has been used to ban the sale of certain weapons by not allowing new weapons on the registry. CA's "Assault Weapons" registry is another great example, where it's basically impossible to get off of it even after getting rid of said weapons and sending multiple certified letters to the CA DoJ to confirm as much, meanwhile CA uses that registry to send threatening sounding letters to people on it about their "responsibility for such dangerous weapons" every year and had a wonderful example of confiscation where it was decided that, after one of the rounds of AW bans, that a certain SKS model that wasn't originally covered really should have been, people dutifully registered them but then had to forfeit them after it was determined that the Registry was not allowed to be re-opened. Meanwhile, the actual value of these registries in solving crimes and tracking down suspects has been shown to be essentially zero, with few, if any, criminals actually tracked down via such registries.

So people learned the lesson that they don't really do anything to solve crime, aren't accurately maintained, take forever to process anything, and are routinely used to cut off access to certain weapons. That's why you get so much pushback against registries.

The question should be whether illegitimate gun violence could be reduced by sensible controls without compromising worthwhile gun use. It's impossible to look into that in the current situation.

The problem is that "sensible controls" are, more often than not, proposed solutions to problems that don't exist or are extremely minute.

There was the cry for universal background checks...after shootings where the perpetrators either passed background checks or murdered the legal owners and stole their weapons (thus bypassing any checks, such as with Sandy Hook). There have been cries for "Assault Weapon" bans, despite the fact that weapons covered by such bans are responsible for probably the least number of deaths of any type of firearm. Now there are cries for using No-Fly and Terror watchlists (which are secret lists subject to no due process) to prevent people from acquiring firearms in the aftermath of mass shootings, despite the fact that no mass shooting would have been prevented by such lists.

**Kilkrazy**

Shall I lock the thread, then?

**Vaktathi**

That's your prerogative as a mod if you desire no further discussion on the topic.

**Kilkrazy**

I don't think we're having a discussion. We seem to having a series of points thrown up to prove that we can't have a discussion.

For example it is said that registration is never done properly and always leads to confiscation and therefore is undesirable, so it should not be discussed.

If we want to discuss this issue, we have to include registration on the agenda because it is the starting point to getting important data about how many guns there are in the country and who has got them.

Similarly we need to be able to identify different types of guns in order to the costs and benefits of them. The fact that in the early 90s someone invented a stupid way of classifying guns does not mean it is impossible to invent a proper way of doing it now.

**Steve steveson**

The biggest problem in having a real debate is the NRA. They stifle any debat as "taking away our guns", and then they come up with bizarre things like banning people on one of the terror watch lists from buying guns. Because using letting the government use a secret list of people which requires no oversight, no chance of appeal and no review to control access to something is a brilliant way to ensure there is no government abuse. I think the fact that the NRA blocks all debate on an open and transparent registration system but is happy for people to be banned because of a secret list says a lot.

**Kilkrazy**

Actually, I think the NRA was against the idea of banning terror watch list people from having guns.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually, I think the NRA was against the idea of banning terror watch list people from having guns.

And they should be against it, as should every American who understands what Due Process is.

And it is worth pointing out, a law banning folks on the terror watch list from having guns (guess someone intends to confiscate any they may already have) would not have stopped a singe death, since none of the perps were on the list when they got their guns and killed people. A solution in search of a problem...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think we're having a discussion. We seem to having a series of points thrown up to prove that we can't have a discussion.

For example it is said that registration is never done properly and always leads to confiscation and therefore is undesirable, so it should not be discussed.

If we want to discuss this issue, we have to include registration on the agenda because it is the starting point to getting important data about how many guns there are in the country and who has got them.

Just out of curiosity, what is the goal of this massive and accurate registry? What do you think is supposed to happen with all that 'important data'?

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think we're having a discussion. We seem to having a series of points thrown up to prove that we can't have a discussion.

For example it is said that registration is never done properly and always leads to confiscation and therefore is undesirable, so it should not be discussed.

If we want to discuss this issue, we have to include registration on the agenda because it is the starting point to getting important data about how many guns there are in the country and who has got them.

Similarly we need to be able to identify different types of guns in order to the costs and benefits of them. The fact that in the early 90s someone invented a stupid way of classifying guns does not mean it is impossible to invent a proper way of doing it now.

So, what do you propose? How do you think they would be classified? Or, to go back a step, first, what is the desired outcome? What are we hoping to do with said hypothetical gun control, and how specifically should it be implemented?

Kilkrazy wrote:
Actually, I think the NRA was against the idea of banning terror watch list people from having guns.

If we're referring to the "terror watch list" and meaning the no-fly list, then I think we should be working to fix the problems with it as it lays now before we expand it's scope. Right now people are thrown on this list without being told they are on there, their right to free travel is impeded, they have no way of being removed from the list, and no way of appealing it. It's completely absurd.

I don't have a problem with the basic idea that if you're being investigated for suspicion of plotting terrorism by a law enforcement agency, you should be prohibited from buying a gun. However, there needs to be some kind of way for you to challenge it, or at least to have a judge sign off of it. Maybe something like a order of protection or a writ that law enforcement can get?

**Vaktathi**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think we're having a discussion. We seem to having a series of points thrown up to prove that we can't have a discussion.

For example it is said that registration is never done properly and always leads to confiscation and therefore is undesirable, so it should not be discussed.

If we want to discuss this issue, we have to include registration on the agenda because it is the starting point to getting important data about how many guns there are in the country and who has got them.

On some level, I can understand that. I get the data collection aspect to better inform debate. However, it's hard to get beyond the past experiences, particularly when said past experiences are so uniformly alike in their problems over many decades, and especially when the legislative vanguards of the side advocating them (CA and NY) keep pushing the bounds of restrictions and bans further and further with the aid of such registries. That *potential* Pandora's box has people so terrified (in some ways unnecessarily, in some ways very understandably) that nobody wants to risk it. There's also issues of administration and enforcement which makes it far more difficult in the US than other nations (bigger population, far more guns both in absolute and proportional terms, greater land area, greater variance of local laws, etc), and nobody has really talked about how to effectively administer one so they don't end up like the other registries that can't properly maintain their data or respond to registration requests in a timely manner.

Even with simple background check requests we're running into issues, as the FBI are so overworked processing checks that they have suspended processing of "delayed" returns entirely. Under Federal law, if a "delay" is not followed through in 3 days, an FFL may (though not *must*) release the item to the purchaser, however there is talk of legislation that would prevent such transfers. This means that any delayed return would then effectively become a "denied" return if the FBI just stops processing delays, in much the same way CLEO sign off for NFA items became a way to prevent their acquisition if the CLEO just didn't want to deal with it. This then fuels fears that background checks will be used as a defacto ban mechanism.

There's lots to talk about, but sadly nothing is particularly easy or clear cut. In theory, would a registry of all US firearms be possible? Sure. Could that data be used to help inform the debate? Sure. But, as explained, there are massive issues with getting there and I haven't seen any suggestions on how to accomplish that without running into the same issues every existing registry has without also diluting such an endeavor to the point of uselessness.

Similarly we need to be able to identify different types of guns in order to the costs and benefits of them. The fact that in the early 90s someone invented a stupid way of classifying guns does not mean it is impossible to invent a proper way of doing it now.

Do you have any suggestions on that front?

A big problem is that firearms really are so varied, and particularly with things like the AR-15, so variable in how they can be assembled and used, that classification becomes difficult to apply in a meaningful manner beyond the most basic terms of operation, and even that can get tricky. Going back to the AR15 receiver I posted earlier, purchased on its own, how do you classify and register that firearm at the point of sale when it's just a bare receiver? If someone walks in, plonks $1000 down, and buys 10 of them, well, that could be everything from ten very clunky .22lr rimfire bolt action pistols to ten semi-automatic center fire rifles, or a mix of everything in between and more.

**Seaward**

Vaktathi wrote:
In theory, would a registry of all US firearms be possible? Sure.

From a bureaucratic standpoint, sure, it's possible. It would be extremely expensive and hilariously inefficient, but the latter, at least, might well be a feature rather than a bug.

From a "gathering useful data" standpoint, though? Not so much. The majority of "assault weapon" owners in New York are estimated to have simply ignored the registration requirement of New York's SAFE Act in 2014. They estimated a million firearms that would fall under that nebulous label in the state, and when the law went into effect, they got 45,000 registrations.

**A Town Called Malus**

Seaward wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
In theory, would a registry of all US firearms be possible? Sure.

From a bureaucratic standpoint, sure, it's possible. It would be extremely expensive and hilariously inefficient, but the latter, at least, might well be a feature rather than a bug.

From a "gathering useful data" standpoint, though? Not so much. The majority of "assault weapon" owners in New York are estimated to have simply ignored the registration requirement of New York's SAFE Act in 2014. They estimated a million firearms that would fall under that nebulous label in the state, and when the law went into effect, they got 45,000 registrations.

Why do you assume that a registry will be inefficient?

**Seaward**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why do you assume that a registry will be inefficient?

Because the ones that we have already are, and they deal with a fraction of the guns in the country.

**CptJake**

Seaward wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Why do you assume that a registry will be inefficient?

Because the ones that we have already are, and they deal with a fraction of the guns in the country.

Hard think the incredibly efficient agencies that end up with US senators mistakenly on the No Fly List could get 10s of millions of gun owners to register 100s of millions of guns and not screw up even if the gun owners were willing to go along. I suspect not all gun owners would be willing to go along, and I suspect the attempt would be tied up in courts for quite a while.

But again rather than talk about how hard it would be to implement correctly, I would love to get a better understanding of the goal/end state. What is the use of all this 'important data'? How important is it? What legitimate function requires this data?

**Kilkrazy**

It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
However, that's not the debate we're having. We're having arguments about how we need to ban high capacity magazine clips despite the fact that a very, very tiny percentage of all firearms deaths per year happen with rifles, that we need to have universal background checks to combat mass shootings (that were perpetrated by people who passed background checks).

From KK's initial post on this train of discussion, I got the sense that neither side can have a decent debate, without being allowed to actually study gun violence in a scientific manner. Keeping the CDC from doing its' job prevents all of us from having a proper debate about the issues.

I agree with you that certain elected officials, within half a second of opening their mouths talking about firearms reveal just how uninformed they are.... And while it's comedy gold, it does go to show that as American interests continue to evolve, people become more and more disconnected from other aspects of other people's lives. By that I mean that those anti-gun senators have hobbies... that could be modding out their Toyota Prius' with a super awesome exhaust kit, or "stancing" the car, and vaping.... But as they get further and further into their hobby, or even further and further into the issues of their actual job (as in, other pet projects and policies, not just guns) they tend to become more and more disconnected from other things to the point where they know absolutely nothing about a thing.

**Nostromodamus**

AR shotguns, pistols and bolt actions exist.

There is also a specialised .50 calibre version.

**Vaktathi**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

For many firearms you would be correct, but it is possible to make an AR15 receiver into all those things. That's how things can get so weird, especially when there's 8-12 million of these things in circulation that can be converted to such a wide array of weapon types.

Bolt Action AR (I believe this one is actually built for the UK market)

AR-15 .410 Shotgun Upper Receiver (goes onto standard AR15 lower receiver)

.50 Caliber AR-15 (.50 Beowulf cartridge) (note, not .50BMG, but still a .50 cal cartridge all the same)

AR-15 Pistol

EDIT: How could I have forgotten...AR-15 Soda Can Launcher

So, if you go and buy a single stripped AR-15 lower receiver, it can be made into all of the above (and more, there are belt fed AR's, .22lr AR's, etc) pretty much just by swapping parts (mostly the upper receiver). Many other firearms also have the ability to change between different types of weapons on a single receiver (my pal's CZ-75 pistol for example can change between 9x19mm Centerfire and .22lr Rimfire), though the AR-15 is by far the most common and versatile in this regard.

**Co'tor Shas**

I'd imagine that it would be easier to classify by the individual parts. Taking a gun as a whole is only going to lead to confusion and unnecessary complication, and could lead to people making relatively benign alterations being charged with a crime.

**Dreadwinter**

This AR-15 Soda Can Launcher is interesting. Does it really launch Sodas? Is it a reliable beverage delivery system? Why are these not used at sportsball games to deliver a cool beverage? How does it handle a T-Shirt?

Asking for a friend.....

**NuggzTheNinja**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a lot of queries to answer all at one go and try to make it succinct, so let me start with gun classification.

How would I classify guns? While I'm not an expert it seems to me there are some technical factors such as 'type' -- rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc -- action and calibre, that are pretty obvious differences between weapons.

An AR-15 may be possible to assemble with different accessories but it's never going to become a shotgun, a pistol, or a bolt-action rifle, or convert from 0.223-inch to 0.5-inch. A difference like having a pistol grip on the front is actually fairly trivial compared to the main points.

That IMO is a possible starting point.

Maybe you didn't see my original question in response to your post on classification, so I'll pose it again: To what end?

**Vaktathi**

Dreadwinter wrote:
This AR-15 Soda Can Launcher is interesting. Does it really launch Sodas? Is it a reliable beverage delivery system? Why are these not used at sportsball games to deliver a cool beverage? How does it handle a T-Shirt?

Asking for a friend.....

Not sure how it handles t-shirts, but it does seem to reliably launch beverages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4oKMmrljTk

**Prestor Jon**

Seaward wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
In theory, would a registry of all US firearms be possible? Sure.

From a bureaucratic standpoint, sure, it's possible. It would be extremely expensive and hilariously inefficient, but the latter, at least, might well be a feature rather than a bug.

From a "gathering useful data" standpoint, though? Not so much. The majority of "assault weapon" owners in New York are estimated to have simply ignored the registration requirement of New York's SAFE Act in 2014. They estimated a million firearms that would fall under that nebulous label in the state, and when the law went into effect, they got 45,000 registrations.

It's not possible. There are already tens of millions of people living in dozens of states who collectively own hundreds of millions of guns. The Feds could ask them to register all of them but there's no way to enforce compliance because there are no current registries to cross check against. The closest thing we have in NY and CT can't even enforce compliance. The idea that the federal government is ever going to have an accurate registry of gun owners in regions like Appalachia and the Ozarks is laughable. The Feds will never have the manpower to enforce compliance and local LEOs in high gun ownership areas aren't going to do any enforcement for them. Even if the ATF tracked every new sale starting tomorrow the 300,000,000+ guns already privately owned defeat the purpose of a registry in the first place.

**Dreadwinter**

Vaktathi wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
This AR-15 Soda Can Launcher is interesting. Does it really launch Sodas? Is it a reliable beverage delivery system? Why are these not used at sportsball games to deliver a cool beverage? How does it handle a T-Shirt?

Asking for a friend.....
Not sure how it handles t-shirts, but it does seem to reliably launch beverages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4oKMmrljTk

Those tennis balls though, never have to throw one for a dog again. Truly, this is the future of fetch!

**Breotan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that this forum is for our current members to debate issues such as gun control (in this specific thread.)

There is an article in the Tribunist on the 15th that brings up a salient point, regarding these shootings.

http://tribunist.com/lifestyle/theres-a-way-to-stop-mass-shootings-and-you-wont-like-it/

There’s a Way to Stop Mass Shootings – and You Won’t Like It.

That’s right. You’re not going to like it because it’s going to require you to do something personally, as opposed to shouting for the government, or anyone to “do something!”

You ready? Here it is:

“Notice those around you who seem isolated, and engage them.”

If every one of us did this we’d have a culture that was deeply committed to ensuring no one was left lonely. And make no mistake, as I’ve written before loneliness is what causes these shooters to lash out. People with solid connections to other people don’t indiscriminately fire guns at strangers.

I know what you’re thinking. That’s never going to work because no one is going to make the effort to connect with the strange kid sitting by himself at lunch each day. No one is going to reach out to the gawky, awkward guy at work and ask him about his weekend.

You’re probably right and that’s an absolute shame.

Because I can tell you the things that aren’t going to work in this country when it comes to stopping these heinous acts. But they seem to be all anyone says, when inevitably, another person comes forward to inflict their tortured pain on innocent people.

Ban All Guns! – Due to the reading of the 2nd amendment and the precedents established by recent Supreme Court cases, this isn’t going anywhere. You’d need an amendment to the Constitution and there will NEVER be 30+ states willing to overturn it. Never mind the multitude of good reasons for its existence, no amount of outrage will overturn it so let’s just stop.

Ban All Guns! (pt. 2) – Assuming you actually could overturn the 2nd and outlaw every firearm in the country, then you’d have to go out and get them. Famously, there are more guns than people in the U.S. You couldn’t come close to collecting them all. Further, if Prohibition and the War on Drugs have taught us anything it’s that those intent on breaking the law are going to do just that. Laws be damned.

Ban Scary Guns Like the AR-15! – Fully auto weapons are already banned*. Most of these shootings occur with a handgun, plain and simple, and these aren’t going anywhere. Murder is illegal, and that doesn’t seem to stop these individuals from performing these atrocious acts. Do you think if there was a ban on shotguns that would stop them?

Keep Them Out of the Hands of Bad People! – Felons are prohibited from owing a firearm already. But let’s not forget, the overwhelming majority of these mass shootings aren’t done by criminals and their guns were obtained legally. How can you know who is going to do something like this? You can’t.

Do Something About Mental Health! – Cool. Yeah. So, like, free psychologists visits for everyone? Even if you could, the people that have done this haven’t been mentally ill, by and large. And, let’s not forget that medical records are private. Would you endorse mandatory psych screening for everyone and those records being sent to the government? Maybe just those who wish to own a gun? Remember, not every person who has engaged in a mass shooting has owned the gun they performed the act with. This is a complete non-starter of an issue with an insane price tag that does nothing to actually keep a person committed to violence from putting their hands on a gun.

Do… SOMETHING! – Gotcha. What do you want to do? “SOMETHING!” Ok, what do you have in mind? “I DON’T KNOW! BUT SOMEONE NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!” Sure. Agreed. But what? Even Obama has had to say in his latest speech how routine it’s become.

If you can’t tell by this point in the list, there is NOTHING the government or any other organization can do to prevent these events.

You can’t effectively keep drugs out of the hands of those intent on doing drugs. You can’t keep beer out of the hands of high schoolers intent on getting beer. You have a HUGE supply of weapons everywhere and concrete federal law protecting those weapons. You’d have as much luck passing regulation against tornadoes. It would be equally as effective.

So there it is. The god’s honest truth. No entity can do anything meaningful (more than is presently being done) to thwart a disaffected person hell-bent on committing such an act.

But you can.

You can talk to your co-worker for a few minutes. You can talk to the kid in your Physics class that appears to be all alone. You can teach your children to do the same, to make sure no one is left to feel totally isolated. Because that’s the breeding ground. That’s where the seeds are planted.