(Photos courtesy: Indiana Department of Corrections)
WAVE 3 TV in Louiville KY reports on the escape of three Indiana convicts who've made their way across the border into Kentucky and have broken into at least one home along the way.
Three men who escaped from a Southern Indiana correctional facility on Friday are still on the loose.
At the home in Sanders KY on Monday morning, the three fugitives first attacked Richard Marshall. He was badly beaten and tied up in the barn. Then they moved to the house.
"The other brother, Keith, when he opened the door for them, they hit him in the head with a club, put him on the floor and tied him up," said Carroll County Sheriff Ben Smith.I don't know about you, but I call this a dilemma. What's the well-intentioned anti-gun guy supposed to say? Should he actually say that when three escaped convicts come a knockin' it's a bad thing to have guns in the house? Honestly, I'd be hard-pressed to say that. Yet, this story, which very likely will have a bad ending, is a perfect illustration of some of the key points in the anti-gun argument.
Police say the three escapees ransacked the house, and when the third brother, Barry Marshall, showed up, he was met at gunpoint and tied up.
"They've got clothes. They are well armed now," said Sheriff Smith. "They have got two high powered rifles, three handguns, plenty of ammunition."Investigators say the fugitives stole 10 guns, $2,000 in cash, a truck, flannel shirts, and jeans.
The main point is "gun flow." These ten guns moved from the good guys to the bad guys. It's simple. Rarely is there a clearer example than this one.
Another point is that guns in the hands of the good guys are not the answer to violent crime. Now, as I said, I couldn't sit here and say that I'd not want to be armed if this frightening situation should ever befall me, I would, but using this case as an example, those 10 guns did not help the Marshall brothers protect themselves. Unfortunately, most gun owners are not as prepared and trained as some of you. In fact, those 10 guns, due to the inexorable nature of "gun flow" are now liable to do some terrible damage.
What's your opinion?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteA couple of points. First you are recognizing the limits to your "flow" theory and recognizing the practicality of being armed. Good.
Second, no one ever said that being armed was the end all be all of safety. There will be times, like this, where being armed doesn't help.
Third, you'll note the convicts were already armed. They had a club, that is a weapon. It's not a firearm, but it is a weapon.
fourth, 10 out of 270,000,000 -- wow that is an awesome "flow" going on there. Get real, more cars are stolen and used in crimes then firearms.
Fifth, the firearms aren't going to do any damage. The PEOPLE wielding the firearms are going to do the damage. The firearms are inanimate objects, notice how it took #1 convicts breaking out of prison #2 assaulting Richard, #3 Assaulting Keith, #4 Kidnapping/restraining Keith, #5 Assaulting Barry, #6 Theft of Clothing, #7 Theft of Firearms......7 crimes before the firearms can be used to jeopardize others.
And how often does this happen?
Even if every firearm related violent crime was with a newly stolen firearm, that is still less then 10% of ALL CRIMES.
How defenseless do you want to make people by making it harder for them to get and keep firearms?
By the way, escaping convicts goes into the argument FOR THE DEATH PENALTY. Wouldn't you agree?
ReplyDeleteTo what Bob said, I would add that as a matter of principle, a defining aspect of our political system is a willingness to bear a certain amount of risk (or put another way, sacrifice a certain amount of safety) for the sake of individual liberty. Constitutional protections for criminal defendants come at the risk that a guilty man may go free. The Fourth Amendment may allow some criminal activity to evade detection by law enforcement. The First Amendment allows for speech that may cause social unrest, and so on and so forth. In much the same way, the right to bear arms creates some negative externalities.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what we could do to entirely eliminate the risk of legally owned firearms falling into criminal hands, other than a complete ban on private gun ownership. Wouldn't that be just as ridiculous as the Bush administration argument that the Bill of Rights and separation of powers principle should be set aside because of a single terrorist attack?
"By the way, escaping convicts goes into the argument FOR THE DEATH PENALTY. Wouldn't you agree?"
No, I would not. Rather, I would say that escaped convicts "goes into the argument" that a certain correctional facility needs to get its shit together and stop letting convicts escape.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteLet's see if you post this comment and I would definitely appreciate a response.
It is on the topic of the "flow" of guns. I'm going to provide to examples.
First, a woman; however provocatively dressed or not, is assaulted and raped by a person who hadn't committed a violent crime prior to that.
Is that woman part of the "rape crime problem"? Did her mere presence constitute "easy availability" of people to be raped?
Or is she the victim of a horrendous crime? An act where the responsibility solely lies with the attacker?
Second example, I'm walking down the street minding my own business and I'm attacked and mugged for my wallet. The criminal uses that money stolen from me to buy drugs.
Am I now part of the "flow" of drugs because I was mugged?
Am I responsible for the crimes committed by drug addicts because I had money?
I don't become part of the "flow of drugs". I don't become part of the "drug problem" as anything other then a victim.
How then is it any different with firearms? The people who have firearms stolen by criminals are victims; not part of the problem.
I eagerly await the answer
In this case, I would look into the variable of how the convicts escaped in the first place. Appears to be a failure of the state to provide the security of the peeople it is responsible for. Good arguement of cars being used for crimes. The people are the variable and not the inanimate objects.
ReplyDeleteThe main point is "gun flow." These ten guns moved from the good guys to the bad guys. It's simple. Rarely is there a clearer example than this one.
ReplyDeleteso, what punishment would you propose the Marshall brothers deserve?
Mike - You want to punish who did nothing wrong. They were victims of a CRIME and had their legally owned property stolen.
ReplyDeleteIt's positions like this that make us call you and your ilk despicable. You advocate for laws punishing innocent victims for no reason other than that their victimization increased the "gun flow problem."
If my porsche is stolen from my driveway is it my fault because I had something criminals wanted to steal.
If my home is burlarized do I bear criminal responsibility if they take one of my kitchen knives and use it to rob someone down the street?
"...so, what punishment would you propose the Marshall brothers deserve?"
ReplyDeleteThis raises an interesting question. Should a gun owner ever be held liable for allowing their guns to fall into the hands of criminals who then injure third parties? I wouldn't think so in the case of the Marshall brothers, because of the circumstances, but what if a plaintiff could show negligence or recklessness on the part of the gun owner?
Maybe some sort of criminal or civil liability for negligent or reckless conduct would address some of Mikeb's public policy concerns, while avoiding gun bans or other restrictions that encroach on gun ownership rights.
what if a plaintiff could show negligence or recklessness on the part of the gun owner?
ReplyDeletehow would that not already be criminal, under existing statutes against reckless endangerment or negligent harm? (and yes, needless to say, those should properly apply in such a situation and that gun owner punished under them.)
Don - To answer you question, yes, on a case-by-case basis per the facts of the case.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are already criminal negligence laws to deal with such situations.
Let's say someone I knew got raging drunk and said he was going to kill his wife. If I said "hey man, I'll help you out with that," handed him one of my loaded guns, and he went and killed her would I be criminally at fault?
You bet I would, because my criminally negligent actions led to her death. Key word there being "Actions." It's a very different thing to advocate punishing someone who's simply been the victim of a burglar.
Punishment based on civil or criminal liability for negligent/reckless behavior is fine by me. Those laws already exist. We don't need more gun laws.
"If I said "hey man, I'll help you out with that," handed him one of my loaded guns, and he went and killed her would I be criminally at fault? You bet I would, because my criminally negligent actions led to her death."
ReplyDeleteThis conduct would go way beyond "criminal negligence." Specific intent to aid in a criminal act coupled with an act in furtherance gives rise to accomplice liability. In this hypothetical, you would be guilty of first degree murder (with a gun spec) to the same extent as the person pulling the trigger.
"It's a very different thing to advocate punishing someone who's simply been the victim of a burglar."
What about a situation where the burglary or larceny is coupled with negligence or reckless conduct on the part of the gun owner? What if I leave my assault rifle in plain sight on the back seat of my car while I go into the mall for a few hours, and someone breaks into my car, steals the rifle, and injures a third party with it? What if my car has locks and a car alarm, and I carelessly neglect to activate either? Is there ever a point where negligent storage of firearms gives rise to liability, criminal or civil?
Don,
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a point but I'm not sure if leaving a firearm visible in my car would be sufficient.
Did I leave the car unlocked? Even then I would have to say I'm not sure. Probably because it wasn't secure.
If I left the firearm sitting on the trunk of my car without making an attempt to secure it. Yes then that would be criminally negligible.
MikeB and others want to make it illegal to leave firearms outside of a gun safe or similar device inside people's homes. So if a thief enters my property (trespass Crime#1, breaks into my home Crime #2, Enters my home Crime#3, Steals my firearm Crime #4.....I'm to be held responsible if the criminal uses it in Crime #5, whatever that is?
Does that make sense?
Where do we draw the line? If I leave money accessible in my house and the thief steals it, buys a firearm and uses the firearm, am I responsible?
MikeB stretches those responsibilities to the point of ridiculousness. Just like with these 3 escaped convicts. There was no negligence on the part of the victims.
What about a situation where the burglary or larceny is coupled with negligence or reckless conduct on the part of the gun owner? What if I leave my assault rifle in plain sight on the back seat of my car while I go into the mall for a few hours, and someone breaks into my car, steals the rifle, and injures a third party with it? What if my car has locks and a car alarm, and I carelessly neglect to activate either? Is there ever a point where negligent storage of firearms gives rise to liability, criminal or civil?
ReplyDeleteNope, even they I shouldn't be criminally liable. Your example is like saying I should be liable if I leave a case of beer in my car, someone steals it, gets drunk, and ends up killing someone in a DUI later that night.
Did my beer help facilitate the later crime? Yes, but my keeping it in the car in view did not MAKE someone break in and steal it, and later commit their crime.
While leaving anything of value somewhere where potential theives might see it is not advisable, the theif is the ONLY ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THEFT AND ANY ACTIONS THEREAFTER.
An attractive woman dressing nicely might attract someone intent on sexual assault, but that doesn't make the assault any less of a crime nor does it shift the culpability from the assaulter to the assaultee.
"So if a thief enters my property (trespass Crime#1, breaks into my home Crime #2, Enters my home Crime#3, Steals my firearm Crime #4.....I'm to be held responsible if the criminal uses it in Crime #5, whatever that is?
ReplyDeleteDoes that make sense?"
In absence of some negligent or reckless act or omission by the home/gun owner, probably not. But then, that begs the question of what reasonably prudent storage is.
"MikeB stretches those responsibilities to the point of ridiculousness. Just like with these 3 escaped convicts. There was no negligence on the part of the victims."
It would be ridiculous to hold the Marshall brothers liable for any injuries these convicts might inflict with the stolen weapons. I'm not sure that's what MikeB is proposing, so I'll leave that for him to say. However, is the gun safe idea as ridiculous? You seem willing to acknowledge that gun owners have at least some responsibility to safely store their weapons. As a society, we place all sorts of restrictions and duties on people who keep dangerous animals, explosives, hazardous chemicals, and so forth. Is it really so outrageous for society to set some standards for the storage of firearms, and liability where a gun owner fails to meet those standards and death or injury to a third party results?
Another thought regarding the "duty" element of negligence...maybe the reasonableness of a storage method should depend on the nature of the instrumentality. For example, maybe a shoebox on the top shelf of my closet is a reasonable way to store a .22 target pistol, but something more secure would be reasonable for an assault rifle.
"While leaving anything of value somewhere where potential theives might see it is not advisable, the theif is the ONLY ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THEFT AND ANY ACTIONS THEREAFTER."
MikeW, your position appears to be a bit different than Bob, who seems more willing (if I read him correctly) to accept the idea of liability for negligent or reckless storage in at least some limited circumstances. On your view, does tort or criminal law have any application to the storage of firearms, or do gun owners enjoy something like immunity? Maybe one could infer from the Second Amendment a certain leniency that does not apply to possession of other dangerous non-firearm items. If there is a "penumbra" of constitutional protection for privacy rights, why not for the right to bear arms, as well?
"An attractive woman dressing nicely might attract someone intent on sexual assault, but that doesn't make the assault any less of a crime nor does it shift the culpability from the assaulter to the assaultee."
True, but as far as analogies go, this is awfully wide of the mark. Your "beer" example is much better.
Bob, Sorry if you're eagerly awaiting my response, but I don't want to play that game. You and some of the others are putting words in my mouth again, and this is prompting you to do one of those lengthy and tedious comparison comments. I don't want to go back and forth with you on that.
ReplyDeleteThe Marshall brothers were victims of a terribly frightening crime. I didn't say or even infer that they should be charged with a crime themselves. But, you guys who know me from past arguments, know that I wonder about things like that.
Just like my famous theory about all gun owners sharing in the responsibility for the gun violence that happens, I feel that the gun owner whose weapons are stolen and then used in a crime, can in certain cases, share in that responsibility.
Please note that the former theory, the gun owner / gun violence theory, says nothing more than "share." I've never said, like you so often accuse me, that it's your fault, or that you are to blame, I only say that you share in some part of it.
Also, please note that when guns are stolen and used to kill someone, for example, I said the owner "can in certain cases" share in that responsibility. Naturally it depends on many factors. And of course that brings up that old question of what good is a gun in the house if it's safely stored away. But, that's another discussion.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou are trying to play word games.
If I "share in that responsibility", then I am at fault in part for the crime. Anything else is pure semantics.
Do you "share in that responsibility" in the cases of child pornography if your camera is 'stolen' and used for that horrible purpose?
Do you "share in that responsibility" if your money is stolen and used to buy alcohol that someone drinks and then drives drunk, killing someone?
If I'm not at fault, then why should I take responsibility?
People who have their guns stolen are victims. why can't you see that obvious of a fact.
How many crimes have to be committed for a person to break into my house and steal my firearms?
To say that I share in the responsibility for the criminal actions done after my firearms stolen is patently ridiculous.
Show me a court case anywhere that held the owner responsible for the criminal deeds done with his/her stolen weapons.
Don,
ReplyDeleteHowever, is the gun safe idea as ridiculous?
Have you priced gun safes? Any form of secure storage that will take thieves more then 2 minutes to get into?
Even regular safes are rated in the time it takes an average thief to get into the safe. Note in that, the companies are not guaranteeing NO THIEF will be unable to get into their safes.
A minimal gun vault, can run $29 for a single pistol. Now, in Texas, for Concealed Carry I have to pay $8 for pictures, $10 for finger prints, $5 for processing fee of my shooting certificate and $140 for my permit.
The required 10-12 hour class costs anywhere from $50 to $200 depending on where you take it. The class is MANDATORY. Given that some people have to take a day off from work, add in a possible $57.2 (min wage) and up to the tab.
Now....you want to tell people that locking their house, having outside lights, keeping the gun out of plain sight isn't good enough. That they need "additional security" because the "gun" is something a crook might steal, might use in a crime, and might use to hurt someone else?
Gee, talk about taxing the poor out of their ability to defend themselves.
Maybe a shoebox on the top shelf of my closet is a reasonable way to store a .22 target pistol, but something more secure would be reasonable for an assault rifle.
So someone shot dead with an assault rifle is more dead then someone shoot with a .22 target pistol?
A robbery committed with a semi automatic pistol with 12 rounds is more illegal then one committed with a revolver with 5 rounds?
Sorry but the security is up to the individual and what they can afford. Knives are becoming a "big problem" in England, are we going to have to invest in secure storage for our steak knives also?
The fact of the matter is that the crimes committed, regardless of the weapon, are the fault, the responsibility of the criminal, not the owner.
If my car is in my garage versus in my driveway...do I have less responsibility for the actions of a thief who steals it?
It is the same, NO responsibility.
What MikeB seems to be doing is trying to set up a reason for gun owners to incur more expense as to discourage ownership.
If I "share" in the actions that result from my firearm; then I would be legally liable for any crimes committed by with it. MikeB seems to be trying to allow people the option of suing the "criminal" or the owner of the gun to recover financially....now who is the crime victim more likely to sue?
Who is more likely to be forced to pay because they "share" in the accountability of actions?
That is the real purpose behind MikeB's insistence in my opinion. It isn't to "encourage" responsible ownership; those who will be responsible already are and no amount of laws will force those who aren't to obey.
I shouldn't "share responsibility" any more than I'd share responsibility if some other good was stolen from my house and used in a criminal act.
ReplyDeleteIf I have a gas can in my garage and someone steals it and uses it to commit arson am I liable?
MikeW, your position appears to be a bit different than Bob, who seems more willing (if I read him correctly) to accept the idea of liability for negligent or reckless storage in at least some limited circumstances.
No, not really. I too accept the idea of liability in certain circumstances. (for example, if you left your loaded gun on the nightstand and a young child got a hold of it and killed injured someone.)
When it comes to STOLEN guns, which is what we're talking about here, then no, I'm not responsible no matter how I chose to store my weapons. Why? Because someone committed a conscious criminal act in order to steal those guns from me.
Am I liable in the gas can example? Am I liable if someone breaks into my house, steals drain cleaner, and poisons someone? Am I liable if they break in, steal a steak knife and use it to murder someone?
A gun is a tool. What a CRIMINAL does with it after they STEAL it from me is not my legal responsibility
Again I am curious as to what type of fire arm was stolen. Were they long guns, or hand guns. I am assuming that this happened at a farm, the reference to a barn is why I assume that. If that is the case, then the guns stolen were likely long guns. Maybe a rifle or two for hunting, or livestock protection, shotguns, for hunting, possibly a black powder muzzle loader for hunting, and maybe a hand gun or two for personal defense or putting an animal down. If the hand guns were used for putting an animal down, the would be low caliber rim fire type pistols, no larger than a 38.
ReplyDeleteMikeB, I wish when posting things about stolen firearms, you would, if you could, tell us what type of firearms were stolen.
As for the majority of comments I agree with them. In cases where clear neglect is shown, yes liability should fall on the gun owner. If you leave a loaded gun on your night stand, and a child shoots another, you should be. However if the gun is stolen from your home, or vehicle no. If your firearm is unloaded, and hidden then no, you are not liable.
"Now, in Texas, for Concealed Carry I have to pay $8 for pictures, $10 for finger prints, $5 for processing fee of my shooting certificate and $140 for my permit. The required 10-12 hour class costs anywhere from $50 to $200 depending on where you take it. The class is MANDATORY."
ReplyDeleteOkay, but I'm not sure what exactly the expenses associated with concealed carry have to do with the issue I've been discussing, specifically, negligence and gun storage.
Concealed carry is a privilege, not a right protected by the Second Amendment (Justice Scalia makes this perfectly clear in Heller). To be granted the privilege, you have to meet the prerequisites applicable in your jurisdiction. If you believe those prerequisites are unreasonable, you should petition your state legislature to enact prerequisites that are.
If a person cannot afford the various fees, one answer is that they will just have to "keep and bear arms" without acquiring a concealed carry permit. Another answer might be for the legislature to adopt a provision allowing for reduction or waiver of some or all of the fees on a showing of economic hardship.
"Now....you want to tell people that locking their house, having outside lights, keeping the gun out of plain sight isn't good enough."
I don't "want to tell people" any such thing. I thought we were having a theoretical discussion about public policy. You act as though my little thought experiments are laws about to be passed by Congress or your state legislature.
Maybe requiring gun safes is too burdensome. I don't know, but I'm not yet convinced that the idea is as ridiculous as you say it is. Some of these specific issues I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about until now. Hopefully, I can think out loud here without you getting bent too far out of shape.
I will say, though, one would have to be homeless for a $29 lockbox to be out of reach. On the other hand, if a person has the economic means to own a collection of shotguns or assault rifles, a gun safe would probably not be beyond the scope of their economic limitations. To a certain extent, aren't storage requirements necessarily proportional to the owner's ability to acquire weapons? If my budget only permits me to own a single handgun, I certainly don't need a huge-ass expensive gun safe.
"Gee, talk about taxing the poor out of their ability to defend themselves."
I suppose, but that argument presupposes that guns are the only means of self-defense. To paraphrase one of your questions, is a person killed with a knife, baseball bat, bare hands, etc., any less dead than a person shot with a gun?
However, I think that your point about undue burdens on the right to bear arms is a valid concern. This was a central issue in Heller, and it is an open question whether a sufficiently burdensome state law might provoke the Supreme Court into applying the
Second Amendment against the states.
I'd be inclined to argue (although the conservative Justices would hate this argument) that laws excessively raising the personal cost of bearing arms through taxes fees and regulations violates the Equal Protection clause on economic grounds.
"So someone shot dead with an assault rifle is more dead then someone shoot with a .22 target pistol?"
I'm not sure how this follows from anything I've said. But at any rate, no, a person killed by an assault rifle is no more or less dead than a person killed by a .22 target pistol. However, a person who enters a crowded movie theater with an assault rifle is probably in a position to cause considerably more deaths than a person who enters a crowded movie theater with a .22 target pistol.
"A robbery committed with a semi automatic pistol with 12 rounds is more illegal then one committed with a revolver with 5 rounds?"
The term "more illegal" is nonsense, because legality is a threshold criterion. But what about a robbery with an illegal firearm (e.g., sawed-off shotgun)? There, the robber is committing an additional crime by possessing an illegal weapon.
"If I 'share' in the actions that result from my firearm; then I would be legally liable for any crimes committed by with it."
No, not necessarily. If I understand MikeB correctly, he is suggesting that gun owners have moral responsibility for gun violence and related damages and injuries. We could live in a society where only military and law enforcement personnel are allowed to "keep and bear" firearms. The choice to maintain a public policy of private gun ownership creates negative externalities, including gun violence, personal injuries, and property damage. Again, if I understand Mike correctly, he believes that gun owners collectively bear moral responsibility for these negative externalities (Mike?). This type of moral responsibility does not necessarily imply criminal or civil liability.
Speaking of responsibility, I'll take the blame for muddying the water with all my talk of civil and criminal liability. I think it's been me, not MikeB, throwing around those ideas.
Don,
ReplyDeleteThe prices of exercising a right, not a privilege, shouldn't price people out of exercising that right.
Concealed carry is not a privilege, neither is having a firearm in your home. If the government can say "Unless you can afford anything and everything We (faceless bureaucrats) require, you can't have a firearm." That is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Not everyone can afford several hundred dollars in gun safes, not everyone needs them either. Some peoples houses are more secure then the law enforcement vehicles that have had firearms stolen out of them. If the LEOs aren't being prosecuted, why should civilians?
You act as though my little thought experiments are laws about to be passed by Congress or your state legislature.
Texas has safe storage requirements for houses with minors residing in that house. Many other states already have safe storage requirements.
Washington D.C. required that all firearms be stored either dissembled or locked in a way to make them not readily accessible.
This isn't a thought experiment, it is a continuing infringement on our rights.
We disagree, drastically, about Concealed Carrying being a right. Since in Texas I can not Openly Carry, the only way I can exercise my right is to carry concealed.
As far as reducing the cost for the poor but not everyone that is bogus. Why should I, who by scrimping and saving, worked up the money be required to pay more to exercise a right then someone making less?
I will say, though, one would have to be homeless for a $29 lockbox to be out of reach.
That is an additional TAX on the right. Regardless of the way it is legally written it adds an additional legal burden on the exercise of a right.
For some people, yes it is out of their reach. Heck the laws against "junk guns" puts many - most firearms out of the reach of some people. Get rid of the "junk gun" laws and it might make sense to require storage...but when some of the cheapest guns around are $150, yes it is out of their reach for a lock box.
I'd be inclined to argue (although the conservative Justices would hate this argument) that laws excessively raising the personal cost of bearing arms through taxes fees and regulations violates the Equal Protection clause on economic grounds.
That is exactly what I'm talking about.
I suppose, but that argument presupposes that guns are the only means of self-defense. To paraphrase one of your questions, is a person killed with a knife, baseball bat, bare hands, etc., any less dead than a person shot with a gun?
When many people have physical infirmities that make defending themselves with bats or knives, yes firearms are the only viable means of self Defense.
The term "more illegal" is nonsense, because legality is a threshold criterion. But what about a robbery with an illegal firearm (e.g., sawed-off shotgun)? There, the robber is committing an additional crime by possessing an illegal weapon.
So by the same reasoning if a felon possess a firearm, the legal criteria has been met and it doesn't matter if he possesses a sawed off shotgun, a single shot .22 or an assault rifle. It is still armed robbery. The idea of tacking on additional charges for the TYPE of firearm used in theoretical nice...but the reality is those charges are dropped or never leveled.
The use of weapon charges has become a plea bargain tactic.
The idea that someone possibly do more damage is a dangerous one to get into...because it presumes what MIGHT HAVE happened, not what actually did. Our legal system is based on the reality, not the potential.
If someone with an 'assault rifle' fires dozens of rounds but only kills one person, how does that makes his/her crime worse then someone with a revolver killing 6 people?
But that "potential danger and damage" is the exact idea behind the assault weapon ban and dozen of other laws...what might happen.
This completely ignores that hundreds of common non-regulated chemicals have an order of magnitude more potential then a firearm. No one is banned from owning fertilizer and fuel oil, the crime is using those items to make a bomb.
That is what I don't get about the AWB and gun control law....why do people put up with prior restraint?
The laws presumes that everyone who wants to own or possess one of the "prohibited" items is a criminal or would be criminal. I resent that type of thinking and insult.
Requiring people to lock up their firearms, requiring secure storage is the same type of thinking.
Most of the use of those laws are to punish people who are responsible. "Your gun was stolen because YOU didn't secure it well enough".
Never mind the fact that most "lockbox" can be broken into in minutes with common tools, we need to blame the owner instead of the criminal.
The choice to maintain a public policy of private gun ownership creates negative externalities, including gun violence, personal injuries, and property damage
I disagree with this. The choice creates the POSSIBILITY that some people will use their freedom to choice to act out negatives.
The private gun ownership does not create the negative externalities at all. The mere presence of an inanimate object only allows free will to be exercised.
Again, if I understand Mike correctly, he believes that gun owners collectively bear moral responsibility for these negative externalities (Mike?).
Sorry but again, I don't bear any moral responsibilities for the illegal decisions of others.
I assume you are male. Does the existence of your penis mean that you bear responsibility for the rape of others?
See how ridiculous that argument is?
This type of moral responsibility does not necessarily imply criminal or civil liability
And all the while, you fail to mention and MikeB fails to mention the positive externalities and the positive impacts that occur from the use of firearms.
How many assaults, rapes, murders, robberies are prevented?
How many thousand of hours of enjoyment are created by target shooting?
How many relationships are forged, grow and deepen over the use of firearms in hunting?
The freedom to choose imparts a moral obligation on one person: the person deciding how to use the firearm...no one else.
Sorry I rambled a bit.
"Sorry I rambled a bit."
ReplyDeleteLOL...please, no apologies. My own verbosity is manifest.
"The prices of exercising a right, not a privilege, shouldn't price people out of exercising that right."
A worthy principle, to be sure, but not without limits. As you yourself go on to say:
"As far as reducing the cost for the poor but not everyone that is bogus. Why should I, who by scrimping and saving, worked up the money be required to pay more to exercise a right then someone making less?"
Even for you, there are clearly limits to how far you are willing to go to keep people from being "priced out" of exercising the right to keep and bear arms. I assume, for example, you would not support a government program to provide free firearms to indigents.
BTW, is it also "bogus" to provide a free lawyer for criminal defendants who can't afford one? That's certainly an example of a taxpayer-subsidized constitutional right.
"Concealed carry is not a privilege..."
What is your legal basis for this assertion? As we've discussed elsewhere, concealed carry is not a "right" protected by the Second Amendment. If it was, there would be no need to enact concealed carry laws in the first place. You may (and perhaps correctly) believe that concealed carry is good public policy, but according to the Supreme Court, it is not a "right" guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
"...but when some of the cheapest guns around are $150, yes it is out of their reach for a lock box."
I suppose, but it seems to me that if they are in such bad economic shape that a $29 gun safe is out of the question, then a $150 gun plus ammo and accessories is probably out of the question, too.
"The idea that someone possibly do more damage is a dangerous one to get into...because it presumes what MIGHT HAVE happened, not what actually did. Our legal system is based on the reality, not the potential."
I don't think this is correct. A key element of negligence, both in the criminal and civil contexts, is the concept of legal "duty." The law imposes legal duties where conduct (and sometimes failure to act) creates a foreseeable risk of injury or damage.
"If someone with an 'assault rifle' fires dozens of rounds but only kills one person, how does that makes his/her crime worse then someone with a revolver killing 6 people?"
It doesn't. I'm distinguishing different types of firearms within the context of a discussion about negligence. I'm thinking in terms of magnitude of risk. But your point about end results is well-taken, and as a practical matter, it would be highly impractical to set forth rational distinctions between different types of firearms for the purpose of storage requirements. Either guns need to be kept under lock and key, or they don't.
"So by the same reasoning if a felon possess a firearm, the legal criteria has been met and it doesn't matter if he possesses a sawed off shotgun, a single shot .22 or an assault rifle. It is still armed robbery. The idea of tacking on additional charges for the TYPE of firearm used in theoretical nice...but the reality is those charges are dropped or never leveled."
I understand that, but I was attempting to address the question you raised, which was whether a robbery could be "more illegal" depending on the type of weapon involved. Regardless of the real-world criminal procedure outcomes, there would be additional illegality if the robber used an illegal weapon in the robbery. In much the same way, if the robber had an accomplice, there would be additional illegality in the form of conspiracy, yet the underlying criminal result (armed robbery) would not be substantively different.
"The use of weapon charges has become a plea bargain tactic."
LOL...don't I know it!
"Requiring people to lock up their firearms, requiring secure storage is the same type of thinking. Most of the use of those laws are to punish people who are responsible. "Your gun was stolen because YOU didn't secure it well enough". Never mind the fact that most "lockbox" can be broken into in minutes with common tools, we need to blame the owner instead of the criminal."
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that gun owners be punished whenever a criminal defeats their security measures. Rather, I am thinking about what the legal standard for secure storage ought to be. Guns are potentially deadly instruments, and I don't think it is unreasonable for society to create a duty of care, and allow for criminal or civil liability where a gun owner fails to meet that standard and damages result. You seem to think I'm suggesting something like strict liability where a gun is stolen, but I'm not suggesting that at all.
So far, your best argument against a lockbox/gun safe standard of care is that poor people might be "priced out" of gun ownership. I've already partially responded to that, and would add that the exercise of many rights is burdened with costs related to public safety. Would you similarly argue against regulations requiring people to maintain good brakes on their vehicles because it is a "tax" on the fundamental right to travel?
"The private gun ownership does not create the negative externalities at all. The mere presence of an inanimate object only allows free will to be exercised."
"Negative externalities" are simply outcomes. They don't stop being externalities because "free will" is involved. Most externalities are the result of human activity.
"Sorry but again, I don't bear any moral responsibilities for the illegal decisions of others.
I assume you are male. Does the existence of your penis mean that you bear responsibility for the rape of others?
See how ridiculous that argument is?"
That is pretty ridiculous, but not really analogous to what I'm talking about. You are thinking of "responsibility" purely in the direct, personal sense, which is more relevant to our discussion of criminal and civil liability. I think there is a broader, more abstract type of moral responsibility based on the concept of self-governance. We choose a certain type of socio-political system, and are answerable for collateral damage due to the functionings of that system. It's a philosophical point, not an "ass hauled off to jail" type of responsibility.
To illustrate, I support decriminalization of marijuana. Say that policy is implemented on a national level. There will inevitably be collateral consequences in both economic and personal terms. I'd say I share in collective moral responsibility for those outcomes, and should rightly have to advance compelling arguments justifying the continuation of the policy.
"And all the while, you fail to mention and MikeB fails to mention the positive externalities and the positive impacts that occur from the use of firearms."
Not that I'm avoiding the point. One simply cannot say everything that might be said about a topic in the context of a blog comment.
Yes, of course there are positive externalities of private gun ownership. The ones you list are compelling. And, here's another one: gun manufacturing and the production of related goods are an important part of the economy.
I think it's also important to note that there would be negative externalities in a system where only police and military personnel were allowed to "keep and bear arms." In particular, I would be concerned that government officials would be more likely to encroach on other rights where the general populace is unarmed.
On my view, these are decent answers to the argument that private gun ownership creates negative externalities that must be answered for. First, there are positive externalities of private gun ownership that at least partially justify tolerating the negative externalities. And second, there is a good argument that the negatives of a system where only government actors are armed would be at least as significant as those of a system allowing for private gun ownership.
BTW, did you really like my Equal Protection argument? I haven't heard anyone else attempt to advance that position. It's probably bullshit, at the end of the day.
Don,
ReplyDeleteYou took what I said then went 180 degrees from it.
Even for you, there are clearly limits to how far you are willing to go to keep people from being "priced out" of exercising the right to keep and bear arms. I assume, for example, you would not support a government program to provide free firearms to indigents.
The point that I was trying to make is the government shouldn't be requiring a fee or tax to exercise a right. Even the smallest fees for exercising that right can stop people. Would you support a blog tax that was progressive? The more you made the more you paid to even comment on a blog? No, free speech is exactly that. The government shouldn't, even in a sliding scale, say you have to pay to carry a firearm. Not if you are indigent, not if you are middle class, not if you are wealthy; no one should have to pay to exercise their right.
Then you turn it around and try to assume that there is a right, then the government should make it possible for people to exercise it. Wrong, just because there is a right doesn't mean the government should subsidize it.
Health care is a great example but that is for another debate.
BTW, is it also "bogus" to provide a free lawyer for criminal defendants who can't afford one? That's certainly an example of a taxpayer-subsidized constitutional right.
To an extent yes, it is bogus.
If legal assistance is going to be provided, there should be two options: take the court appointed attorney or take the amount the government would pay for that attorney and add it to your own money.
That way keeps the principle alive and provides assistance to all the economic levels. I've been on the receiving side of "you make too much money to qualify" for program X to often....but a person making just a few dollars less does qualify.
Concealed Carry as a right:
I'll make this one brief: Do I have a right to "bear arms"? Yes.
If the government, state in this case, doesn't allow the Open Carry of arms, what is the only way that I can "bear arms"?
Concealed carry, ergo if I have a right to bear arms and the only way I can carry those arms is concealed then that is a right I should be able to exercise freely.
Guns are potentially deadly instruments, and I don't think it is unreasonable for society to create a duty of care, and allow for criminal or civil liability where a gun owner fails to meet that standard and damages result. You seem to think I'm suggesting something like strict liability where a gun is stolen, but I'm not suggesting that at all.
You've articulated an argument about 1000 times better then MikeB has ever done so. But the argument fails on several points because people like MikeB do use it for advocating strict liability.
They want to hold the owner financially responsible for the criminal misuse of their firearms: that is strict liability.
Heck, they try to holder manufacturers responsible for the criminal misuse of their lawfully made products: something clearly established in law as wrong. They don't try it with car makers for example....but for firearm manufacturers it is a way to bankrupt them with legal fees. Even if the cases are thrown out, it costs millions to have lawyers fighting the cases. Congress passed a law forbidding that type of challenge and still people do it.
Second, you say "Guns are potentially deadly instruments, and I don't think it is unreasonable for society to create a duty of care,".
We already that that "duty of care" it is called criminal negligence. It is called civilian negligence, those are well established in case law and are applicable.
That isn't what anti-freedom people like MikeB are after. They want strict liability as I already said. Proof? They don't require safe storage laws for knives - another potentially dangerous item.
How about safe storage laws for household chemicals? Accidental poisoning kills kids more often then firearm accidents....but are they pushing for safe storage laws for chemicals? Nope.
Think about that, they say "they want to save lives" but attack one of the smaller causes of accidental death.
Would you similarly argue against regulations requiring people to maintain good brakes on their vehicles because it is a "tax" on the fundamental right to travel?
Sorry but the wheels came off your analogy there. Brakes are integral to the operation of the car, not the storage of the car. I do support people having to maintain their firearm in a manner to insure proper functioning, IF they are going to use it in public -- just like the brakes on a car - IF it is used in public.
What is a better analogy is requiring people with cars to store them in a locked building. That is the same as a lock box for a firearm. How many people could afford to maintain a garage in the city to prevent their car from being stolen and used in a crime?
I think the Equal Protection argument is completely valid and will be used to remove the excess fees for carry or ownership permits.
As I stated earlier in Texas the fees are completely excessive. I would see Equal Protection being used to require a situation like Driver's Licenses.
A license in Texas does not require a class (unlike CHL), you show up, pass a written test, pass a practical application test, pay a small fee - currently $26 for 6 years.
Why can't Concealed Handgun Licenses be granted the same way?
As long as I possess the required knowledge and can demonstrate proficiency; haven't I met all the state requirements?
That reduces the time and cost burden to something that is manageable for thousands more. Allowing them to exercise their rights. Of course, personally I think that no money should be required to exercise a right.
Great debate
Bob said to Don, "You've articulated an argument about 1000 times better then MikeB has ever done so."
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteGet into this argument and disprove my points.
We've discussed the right to keep and bear arms; concealed or not.
We've discussed the "safe storage" laws and how they affect "responsibility".
We've discussed the economic barrier that governments are imposing on the right to keep and bear arms.
We've discussed the idiocy of additional charges for the type of weapon used.
Another note on that; we already have a mechanism in place that deals with it; it is the number of counts or times a person is charged with a crime.
Thus some can be charged with multiple murders at the same time, or attempted murder.
To say a person should face additional charges solely based on the weapon used completely goes against the grain of our legal system.
I think I've completely shredded your "moral responsibility" argument MikeB.
Show me where I'm wrong.
Show me where I'm wrong on the safe storage laws.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteSee where you've posted another comment but haven't shown where my argument is incorrect.
Come on, you've got your common sense.
By the way, let's use a little commonsense on the flow of firearms into Mexico.
Option #1 Drug cartels can buy arms on the international market and smuggle them into Mexico.
Option #2 Drug cartels can recruit Mexican Soldiers and bribe them to bring their weapons when the soldiers go awol and join the cartels
Option #3 Drug cartels can bribe Mexican Army officials to sell them arms.
Option #4 Drug Cartels can recruit a network of smugglers who then recruit a network of people to buy firearms off a network of people who are legally qualified to purchase firearms in America.
Now, which of these options are mostly likely to be how 90% of the firearms used by the cartels are being acquired?
"The point that I was trying to make is the government shouldn't be requiring a fee or tax to exercise a right. Even the smallest fees for exercising that right can stop people."
ReplyDeleteI understood your point. Ultimately, your argument against gun storage requirements seems to rest on two premises: 1) the exercise of rights should not be taxed, and 2) storage requirements amount to a "tax" on the exercise of a right. While I appreciate your idealism, the reality remains that states have broad powers to regulate in the areas of public health, welfare and safety.
I agree that the concept of unfettered rights is a fine philosophical ideal, but there are no unfettered rights in practical application. For example, the First Amendment is fundamental, but states have always been able to place reasonable time, manner and place restrictions on this right, and require fees for parade permits or use of public facilities. Freedom of the press doesn't mean newspapers and other media don't get taxed like other businesses. There is a right to contraception, but states are free to tax the sale of contraceptives. The Constitution recognizes a fundamental right to freedom of travel. Yet, government taxes the exercise of this right all the time (think licenses, registration, taxes, passports, tolls, etc.)
In these contexts, those of lesser economic means don't get to exercise their rights to the same extent as people of greater economic means. We live in a sub-optimal world, and I can't see how we might avoid these disparate outcomes without subsidies, which you seem to adamantly oppose.
I do agree that states should not regulate in an overly burdensome way, but it is nonsense to argue that states cannot ever regulate in a way that adds expense to the exercise of a right.
"If legal assistance is going to be provided, there should be two options: take the court appointed attorney or take the amount the government would pay for that attorney and add it to your own money."
So you'd like to see some sort of legal voucher program? That's an interesting idea. Although, I think there is a certain logic to needs-based economic assistance. As a background rule, one should pay for their own lawyer, and appointed counsel is a limited exception to the rule.
Should everyone get $400 a month allowance for groceries, to avoid the unfairness of only poor people getting welfare assistance, or does it make more sense to condition such assistance on individual need?
Concealed Carry as a right:
I understand the flow of your logic. As a practical matter, concealed carry broadens the individual's ability to bear arms. But, you are talking about what you think the right to bear arms ought to be, and I'm talking about what it is. Not to keep beating Heller like a dead horse, but concealed carry is not part of the Second Amendment guarantee.
There are no absolute rights in our political system (the closest thing bring the prohibition on prior restraints on free speech). There is a tension between individual rights and democracy. Although the individual has a right to keep and bear arms, society as a whole (meaning states) has a right to say "you can't carry concealed weapons."
Let me say, though, nothing is written in stone. Heller felt like an invitation to more Second Amendment litigation, and there is always a possibility that the Supreme Court may be receptive to the argument you've stated here.
"You've articulated an argument about 1000 times better then MikeB has ever done so. But the argument fails on several points because people like MikeB do use it for advocating strict liability.
They want to hold the owner financially responsible for the criminal misuse of their firearms: that is strict liability."
So my argument "fails" because other people are advancing proposals different form mine? That does not make sense. Shouldn't my argument stand or fall on its own merits?
"How about safe storage laws for household chemicals? Accidental poisoning kills kids more often then firearm accidents....but are they pushing for safe storage laws for chemicals?"
This is clearly where we are never going to agree. A gun storage requirement makes no sense unless one is willing to acknowledge that guns pose a greater risk to public safety than most other items found in a home.
I could choke to death while eating a banana, and would be no less dead than if I'd been killed with a handgun. Thus, a handgun is no more dangerous than a banana. So the argument goes.
I think this is why the gun storage requirement seems unreasonable to you. On your view, guns are no more or less dangerous than other objects found around the house.
"Why can't Concealed Handgun Licenses be granted the same way?"
There's no reason they can't. It's up to the democratic process of your state.
"Get into this argument and disprove my points."
Dude, this is a debate about public policy. I don't know that such matters are subject to proving or disproving. How do you "disprove" value judgments?
"To say a person should face additional charges solely based on the weapon used completely goes against the grain of our legal system."
I don't know what you mean by this. Congress and the states can outlaw certain types of weapons. If a person commits a crime with an illegal weapon, they can be charged with using an illegal weapon in addition to the underlying offense. How exactly is that "against the grain of our legal system?" Or for that matter, how is that "idiocy?"
"Show me where I'm wrong on the safe storage laws."
Again, I can't "prove" you are wrong any more than MikeB can. We each favor different public policy because we each have different priorities, and give different weight to various values. On my part, I've simply been arguing that the idea of a "safe storage" standard of care isn't as crazy as you're making it out to be.
"Great debate."
Agreed.
:)
Don,
ReplyDeleteHeller clearly stated that the right to bear arms was an individual right, do you agree?
If the state limits the right to bear arms by making open carry illegal, then the only right to bear arms that remains is concealed carry.
In states that have open carry, I agree that concealed carry can be, not that it should be, viewed as a privilege.
I'm not talking about viewing Heller as it should be but as a reality in today's world.
As far as subsidizing of those with less means then others, I disagree that is a job for the federal government. I consider the "general welfare" argument to be an extreme reach in the government's powers.
In reality, it is simply income re-distribution and that is something I disagree with.
Currently, everyone does get an allowance, so to speak, for their groceries in the form of taxes.
Most grocery items do not have taxes on them, so poor people are subsidized in that regard along with the rich. But then luxury items are taxed so those who want to eat better are paying for that privilege. The system is already rigged in that regard.
So my argument "fails" because other people are advancing proposals different form mine? That does not make sense. Shouldn't my argument stand or fall on its own merits?
Your argument doesn't fail because of the problems with others, I was just pointing out how the argument fails in general.
Your argument fails because of this line:
A gun storage requirement makes no sense unless one is willing to acknowledge that guns pose a greater risk to public safety than most other items found in a home.
The point is that a firearm doesn't pose a greater risk then most other items found in a home.
Accidental poisoning kills more children then firearm accidents, but that doesn't fit the gun banners program.
Timothy McVeigh used household chemicals in the Oklahoma City bombing...and didn't use a firearms to become a mass murderer.
Firearms don't pose a greater risk in most households. This isn't my view, this is the view of the CDC and every governmental agency that tracks deaths. Look up the numbers via WISQARS, accidental deaths with firearms are less dangerous then pools, less dangerous then cleaning chemical, far less dangerous then cars.
It is in a select few households that have problems.Household already associated with violence, drug use and criminal activity. Households that don't follow current laws and won't follow any increased laws.
Why make laws that only affect the law abiding?
Dude, this is a debate about public policy. I don't know that such matters are subject to proving or disproving. How do you "disprove" value judgments?
Prove that firearms are more of a danger. Prove that there is a legal barrier, or should be, to the right to keep and bear arms. Prove that concealed carry or open carry endangers the public safety instead of increasing public safety.
Just about every "value" judgment I've present can be backed up with some form of evidence. From household chemical to crime rates.
Every statement about household dangers can be backed up with evidence. Heck, even a biased source of information, such as the Kellermann study, indicates that household risk is associated with criminal activity and drug use more so then firearms. Prove me wrong on that. There are hundreds of points to prove that my reasoning doesn't stand up.
Again, I can't "prove" you are wrong any more than MikeB can. We each favor different public policy because we each have different priorities, and give different weight to various values.
Here is a concept for you to consider when debating public policy and values: Liberty
The safe storage laws are another intrusion of governmental regulation into a space that should be governed by common sense. More "nanny state" reaching into private matters in the guise of public safety. This has to be resisted in and of itself.
Shouldn't each person decide and be able to decide what is right for their home? Should the government be allowed to tell people that a 1 size fits all regulation is better then their own decisions.
There are household where the kids shoot better then I do and know firearm safety better then you or I....should they be forced to adopt the requirements because the lowest common denominator can't properly handle firearms?
I've stated repeatedly that gun control isn't about firearms, it is about control. This is just another example. Some states have requirements in their laws, that allow "inspection" of a household to make sure safe storage laws are being followed. That is an intrusion in our privacy, and that type of intrusion will continue to proliferate unless we stand firm.
Commonsense can't be legislated or mandated by law, it just doesn't work but that is what is being tried here in the name of safety. It isn't about safety.
It is about liberty.
Not to keep beating Heller like a dead horse, but concealed carry is not part of the Second Amendment guarantee.
ReplyDeleteThere are no absolute rights in our political system (the closest thing bring the prohibition on prior restraints on free speech).
Ok, CCW is not a "right" per the
2nd Amendment. That said if a state is going to prohibit or greatly restrict CCW (see Illinois, DC, MD for example) then they should NOT be able to also prohibit open carry.
As it stands in MD, DC, and IL the "bear arms" part of the Amendment doesn't exist. You cannot bear arms in those states (and federal enclave) without committing a felony.
As for absolute rights, you are correct. That said, the level and number of a priori restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights are unlike the restrictions on any other fundamental right.
The 2nd Amendment is null and void in some areas of this country. Folks like Mike treat the 2nd Amendment as a 2nd class right. If people in certain areas of the country were denied free exercize of their 1st Amendment rights MikeB would be singing a decidedly different tune.
"Heller clearly stated that the right to bear arms was an individual right, do you agree?"
ReplyDeleteYes, and Heller also clearly states that the right to bear arms is not a right to bear any arms at any time for any purpose. In Heller Justice Scalia discusses the history of the Second Amendment, and specifically notes that state prohibitions on concealed weapons are constitutionally valid. This has been so for centuries.
If the Supreme Court ever applies the Second Amendment to the states (never say never), maybe they would be receptive to the argument that, for the reasons you cite, a state can prohibit open carry or concealed carry, but not both.
"The point is that a firearm doesn't pose a greater risk then most other items found in a home...Prove that firearms are more of a danger."
I can't "prove" this to you, because we are not using the same metric for measuring "risk" or "danger." Your position appears to be that anything that has any potential to end human life is as "dangerous" as any other thing that has any potential to end human life. As I pointed out above, if one starts from this assumption, one can argue that an assault rifle is no more "dangerous" than a banana, or a glass of water, or a handful of dirt, or anything else that could conceivably kill a person.
On my view, there are crucial distinctions between firearms and the other household items you mention. Most firearms have greater potential destructive force than most (if not all) other household items. Moreover, the destructive force of firearms is very easily applied, and can be applied with speed and repetition. I suspect this is the reason why soldiers carry firearms into combat, rather than, say, bananas, kitchen knives, or Drano.
"Accidental poisoning kills more children then firearm accidents, but that doesn't fit the gun banners program.
Timothy McVeigh used household chemicals in the Oklahoma City bombing...and didn't use a firearms to become a mass murderer..."
Okay, but generally speaking, what instrumentalities are most commonly used to achieve what results? Of all the murders committed last year, what percentage involved firearms, and what percentage involved household chemicals, pools, cars, or fertilizer bombs? In what percentage of rapes and robberies does the assailant use household chemicals or a car as a weapon? How many firearm related homicides were there last year, compared to the number of fertilizer-bomb related deaths?
Again, this is all a question of how we frame our analogies, and how we construct our equations.
"Why make laws that only affect the law abiding?"
I hear this point made a lot, and haven't addressed it yet. I think what you mean to say is, gun laws only *deter* the law abiding. If someone breaks the law, the law certainly "affects" the lawbreaker where prosecution and punishment occurs.
Also, can't you raise this same objection to *any* law? For example, laws prohibiting murder only deter those who are willing to be deterred. Do you oppose all laws that have less than a 100% deterrent effect?
Prove that there is a legal barrier, or should be, to the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, as we've already discussed, the Second Amendment applies only against the federal government. The states have general police powers, and as such may regulate firearms. And, the federal government also has some fairly broad powers of regulation. I've cited Heller extensively, and I'm not sure what else I can do to "prove" to you that the right to keep and bear arms is not entirely beyond the power of government to regulate.
"Prove that concealed carry or open carry endangers the public safety instead of increasing public safety."
I have no idea what effects concealed carry might have on public safety. Rather, I've been discussing the merits of safe storage laws. As far as concealed carry, the only point I've been attempting to drive home is that concealed carry is not a constitutionally protected right, no matter how much you might want that to be so.
"Here is a concept for you to consider when debating public policy and values: Liberty"
LOL...thank you, Bob. I had forgotten all about "liberty" and "common sense" until you mentioned them just now.
But in all seriousness, I am aware of and always take into consideration the liberty interests you cite here.
Don,
ReplyDeleteYes, and Heller also clearly states that the right to bear arms is not a right to bear any arms at any time for any purpose.
Just like the right to free speech doesn't mean you have a right to lie or defraud people to obtain products or services. The decision clearly noted that the right to bear arms was for "confrontations". That is what they meant for not at any time for any purpose. Just because I'm having words with someone, doesn't mean I can pull a firearm.
That is the limitation, not that I can't or shouldn't be allowed to have the firearm, but I have to follow all the laws of the land.
Okay, but generally speaking, what instrumentalities are most commonly used to achieve what results?
Firearms are used in approximately 75% of all homicides. Now comes the shocker....in less then 10% of all violent crime is a firearm the instrument used.
So firearms aren't the commonly used instrumentality in most violent crime, not by far.
Think of the approach neeeded to reduce firearm crime by 10%. If that extreme effort yields results, there is less then a 1% drop in total crime.
Now, if a similar effort is focused on TOTAL Crime, a 10% reduction yields -- surprise a 10% reduction in Total crime, including a 1% decrease in firearm crime.
The reduction of total crime doesn't necessarily and probably wouldn't involve restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
By only focusing on firearms, it is a guarantee that there will be a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. Is it worth the loss of freedoms for something that won't produce a dramatic result?
I hear this point made a lot, and haven't addressed it yet. I think what you mean to say is, gun laws only *deter* the law abiding. If someone breaks the law, the law certainly "affects" the lawbreaker where prosecution and punishment occurs.
Wrong, a ban on firearms doesn't deter the law abiding it completely prevents them from exercising their rights.
The lawbreaker on the other hand exercises his right to keep and bear arms and ONLY, big ONLY if caught does it affect them. Note that the law abiding is affected and the law breaker isn't.
Punishment and prosecution are not prior restraints to the law breaker...and they are to the law abiding. Breaking the law only affects the criminal. Does that make sense?
Do you oppose all laws that have less than a 100% deterrent effect?
That is my point completely. Laws are not deterrents. They only describe the penalties for performing such an act. The only deterrent is the morality/the ethics of the person. Laws, in my opinion, don't act as deterrents. Punishment may but that is separate from the law itself.
If the law states that murder is wrong and the consequence of that action is death...there will be people who break the law.
Now if there are rapid executions of those convicted, then that punishment is the deterrent.
This can be seen in the fact that today's criminal justice system, the punishment is not a deterrent. Too many people commit murder and are on the streets again in sometimes just months, 6-12 years on average. The punishment hardly acts as a deterrent. The law itself certainly doesn't.
That is why I favor the death penalty and the right to keep and bear arms.
There should be a natural consequence (punishment if you will) for those who decide to rape, assault and murder. That consequence should be running into capable and armed citizens willing to defend themselves. If the criminal survives the encounter, then the punishment prescribed by the legal system should apply.
Anyone who thinks this is taking the law in "there own hands" is absolutely mistaken. I have the inherent right to defend myself, my family and my property with as much force as needed. That is the law, that is my right. I'm not superseding the law, I'm exercising the full intent of the law.
Well, as we've already discussed, the Second Amendment applies only against the federal government
See this is where we have a problem Don, you are talking about the 2nd amendment and I'm talking about the right to keep and bear arms.
They are separate but related. The 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It is not the entire right to keep and bear arms. That right exists separate and apart from the Constitution. The states should and most have limitation also on the right to keep and bear arms, look at their state constitutions.
As far as the 2nd amendment, that should be incorporated through the 14th amendment.
Also on the subject of 2nd amendment right limitations, see the 9th and 10th amendments. Any POWER not specifically detailed to the Federal government or reserved from the states resides in the PEOPLE.
The states have general police powers, and as such may regulate firearms
No one is claiming otherwise, but again, there are severe limitations on those rights.
LOL...thank you, Bob. I had forgotten all about "liberty" and "common sense" until you mentioned them just now.
But in all seriousness, I am aware of and always take into consideration the liberty interests you cite here.
Please be aware Don that I address my comments to a wider audience then the person to whom I am responding.
First, I address people like MikeB that have forgotten or want to ignore liberty.
Second, I address people who haven't made up their minds, people who haven't heard all the facts or haven't considered all the aspects.
Didn't mean to insult you but at the same time it is a valid issue.
No one can make the world perfectly safe and few gun banners like MikeB want to admit they are infringing on essential liberties.
Freedom comes with a price, people can and do misuse that ability, but that isn't a reason to remove the right from the rest of us.
That is why we have laws to cover the criminal acts; to punish those who misuse their rights and abilities.
We could remove the deaths associated with drunk driving by banning and confiscating all the cars in America. Would that stop the deaths? Only from the alcohol/car connection...and what price would we pay for that safety?