Wednesday, May 26, 2010

More on the Arkansas Father and Son Shootout

The Brady Blog provided several links about the now infamous father and son team in Arkansas who killed two policemen before being killed themselves. We discussed them the other day, FishyJay providing some comments very rightly pointing out the difficulty in identifying these dangerous types. The Brady post provides a bit of illumination.

Jerry Kane publicly espoused violence, had strong anti-authority feelings, had multiple run-ins with the law, and caused local law enforcement to be concerned about his future actions. And, yet, he was still able to obtain AK-47 assault rifles in this country.

Among those "run-ins with the law" were these, according to the Knoxville News-Sentinel.

Ohio police records describe Kane as a burly man, 6-foot-2 and 230 pounds, who for a time wore a black beard. Since 1983, Kane was arrested or cited six times in Clark County, Ohio, on charges ranging from passing bad checks to criminal trespass, drunken driving and driving with expired tags.

Kane was charged with felonious assault in 2004 after allegedly shooting a 13-year-old boy in Springfield with a “handgun-style BB gun.”


What's your opinion? Is it so difficult to identify a guy like this as unfit to own guns? I don't think so. One easy way is to allow the local police to approve or disapprove gun purchases. That would prevent a lot of this kind of thing.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

24 comments:

  1. In reality, it's not difficult at all to identify these folks. As we've seen--time and time again--these so-called "law-abiding" folks really aren't. They usually have a string of legal and mental health issues behind them.

    Remember--"law-abiding" in the NRA sense of the term is someone who either hasn't committed a felony or is a felon whose crime was non-violent.

    And it's important to note the NRA encourges the anti-government sentiments practiced by the Kanes and others. Imagine what would happen if some US-based Muslim cleric was telling all who listen about Govt conspiracies?

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  2. mikeb: "Is it so difficult to identify a guy like this as unfit to own guns? I don't think so. One easy way is to allow the local police to approve or disapprove gun purchases."

    To whatever extent that might work, it might be the only way. The Bradys' "solution" seems to be to deny as many types of guns as possible to as many people as possible.

    When mikeb says "allow the local police to approve or disapprove gun purchases," I suspect that he is not thinking of actual convictions of anything, but total authority to deny the right based upon whim.

    Does anyone see any possibility for abuse or denial of due process? Can you imagine those like mikeb suporting something similar for most OTHER rights, much less a CONSTITUTIONAL right in the Bill of Rights?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...to deny the right based upon whim."

    Now where did I say that, FishyJay?

    I'm saying the local authorities ought to have the right to deny rights to troubled characters based on experience. Is it open for abuse, of course. All power is. But, wielded properly, perhaps with some oversight mechanisms in place, this would prevent a lot of trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Bradys' "solution" seems to be to deny as many types of guns as possible to as many people as possible.

    That is their goal, to deny guns to the American public.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MikeB - Do you have any evidence that such a system would actually lower crime (or even "gun crime?")

    There are still a handful of discretionary "may issue" CCW states, yet other than making it easier to keep people from carrying legally, I've seen no factual evidence that discretionary denial lowers crime rates or in any way contributes to public safety.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Since it's apparently so difficult to determine who is a crazy person and who is not, let's just repeal the Second Amendment and be done with it.

    I mean WTF. Apparently we aren't allowed to search someone's background or make sure they aren't mentally ill, or a terrorist, or a criminal, or make sure they take a gun safety course or legislate that guns must be stored in a way that kids or criminals can't get at them, or in any way legally treat a gun as anything other than the most inocuous sort of tchoctke.

    Apparently we Americans are wound tighter and crazier than, say, Canadians or the Swiss. So until we figure out what makes us so batshit insane maybe we should take all the guns away so we stop killing each other.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've seen no factual evidence that discretionary denial lowers crime rates or in any way contributes to public safety.

    Of course, Mike W. has looked *everywhere.*

    It wasn't in the bottom of the box of animal crackers ™ his Mom gave him. It wasn't in his toy box. It wasn't underneath his Princess Sparklepony stuffed animal.

    But, apprently, they have this new-fangled thing called the 'intertubes' and somethingamajig called 'goggles' or something like that. Had Mike W. availed himself of this bleeding edge technology, he may have run into studies by Ayres and Donohue who found that not only did CCW laws tend to incease crime but that the asociated costs of such crimes increase.

    Mike W. would have also found similar research--with similar results--by Ludwig, Black, Nagin, etc.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Imagine what would happen if some US-based Muslim cleric was telling all who listen about Govt conspiracies?"

    They'd get a job in the Obama administration?

    ReplyDelete
  9. AztecRed, that's the funniest line I've read in a while, too bad you were half-serious.

    "So until we figure out what makes us so batshit insane maybe we should take all the guns away so we stop killing each other."

    DouthernBeale, that's the funniest line I've read in a while, I'm glad you were half-serious.

    "So until we figure out what makes us so batshit insane maybe we should take all the guns away so we stop killing each other."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike W. asked, "Do you have any evidence that such a system would actually lower crime (or even "gun crime?")"

    They have this neat expression called, "a no-brainer." This is a good example.

    There may very well be evidence out there, but why would I bother to look for it when you refuse to accept the common sense of this situation. Local police often know who the young offenders are before they start racking up felony convictions. These people would be prohibited and much damage would be averted. This is simple and straightforward, a no-brainer.

    But, if you refuse to see that, you wouldn't be convinced by anything. Your mind is made up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Even if you were to disarm all the crazy people, you'd still have the remaining 80% of homicides that are committed by career criminals, gang members, and those involved in the drug trade.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Apparently we Americans are wound tighter and crazier than, say, Canadians or the Swiss."

    Southern Beale,
    You do realize that in Switzerland, the government gives machine guns to all of the households, right?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Local police often know who the young offenders are before they start racking up felony convictions. These people would be prohibited and much damage would be averted.

    These people are already prohibited, since you must be 21 to apply for your CCW.

    The young gangbangers and street thugs aren't going through the CCW process anyway. They're criminals. They're just sticking their gat down their pants regardless of what the law says.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I mean WTF. Apparently we aren't allowed to search someone's background or make sure they aren't mentally ill, or a terrorist, or a criminal, or make sure they take a gun safety course or legislate that guns must be stored in a way that kids or criminals can't get at them, or in any way legally treat a gun as anything other than the most inocuous sort of tchoctke.

    WTF is right SoBeale, as in WTF is this tripe you're spewing? There are already a plethora of laws barring ACTUAL VIOLENT CRIMINALS from owning guns. Same with the mentally ill.

    As for mandating "safety" courses. We do not subject rights to such things.

    You can spew baseless crap all over the internet and we don't require you to undergo (and pay for) some useless test before you may exercize that right. I suppose you support literacy tests and poll taxes too, as the tolerant, progressive, freedom loving liberal you are?

    As for storage requirements, what other household items should you be held criminally liable for in the event that a criminal breaks into your home and steals said items?

    If someone breaks in, drinks your booze, steals your car and kills someone should you be criminally liable for not "securing" said items, even though some asshole broke into your home and stole your property?

    What about bleach or any number of household cleaners that could harm a child. Should it be a crime for you to not have those under lock & key 24/7?

    What about kitchen knives, baseball bats, or a small can of gasoline you keep in the garage?

    Your position is absurd. I suspect at some level you know this, which is why you cannot mount a rational and well-written counterpoint to what I say.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike W. repeats the same old, tired BravoSierra..bleach is dangerous, knives are dangerous, baseball bats are dangerous...yaddayadda.

    Guess what, Mikey? We don't send troops into combat with a spray bottle of Lysol or a Louisville Slugger for a reason.

    Similarly, there really isn't an epidemic of crooks breaking into houses, drinking up all the booze, stealing the Hyundai and going on crash and destroy missions.

    It's kind of amusing watching Mikey W. accuse anyone of being "absurd" when he invents scenarios of crooks, armed with Lysol, drinking everyone's hooch and driving crunk.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whose fault is it if someone breaks into your home and steals something?

    You? or the guy who broke into your home and stole your property?

    Simple question, simple answer. At least the answer is simple for those of us who are intelligent.

    ReplyDelete
  17. mikeb: "I'm saying the local authorities ought to have the right to deny rights to troubled characters based on experience."

    How is that distinguishable in practice from whim?

    And for what otherrights should police have the same power?

    ReplyDelete
  18. FishyJay asks, "How is that distinguishable in practice from whim?"

    In some instances it would be indistingiushable, in others it would be clearly a justified decision. Perhaps in others it would be an obvious abuse of power on the part of the police. Isn't that what exercising power and authority is all about?

    What are you doing, going Libertarian on us? You don't what anybody to have any power over your precious gun rights?

    Think of it this way. With proper administration this system could improve the crime rate involving guns with minimum inconvenience for the law abiding. That would be good for everybody, especially the gun owners.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mike W. asks what sounds like a simple question, but isn't: "Whose fault is it if someone breaks into your home and steals something?"

    I think it depends. Let's put it this way, there are two homeowners in the same neighborhood. One guy gets loaded and not only forgets to lock his front door but leaves it ajar before passing out in front of the TV. The thief sneaks in and steals his gun. The other guy stays sober, locks the place up tight and in spite of his precautions, the thief jimmies a back door, sneaks in and steals his gun.

    Is there no difference?

    How about if the first guy had his gun in a bedside nightstand while the second guy had it locked in a gun safe which somehow was breached by his very talented thief?

    Is there still no difference?

    ReplyDelete
  20. mikeb: "In some instances it would be indistingiushable, in others it would be clearly a justified decision. Perhaps in others it would be an obvious abuse of power on the part of the police. Isn't that what exercising power and authority is all about?"

    And there are situations in which we don't grant such wide power because it's just too likely that whim and abuse and denial of due process would occur.

    That's why it's hard to answer: "For what other rights should police have the same power?"

    ReplyDelete
  21. You're right that is a hard question, but I think the cops should and do have the same power with regards other "rights." When no guns are involved, the cops use their discretion to determine when it's appropriate to question someone and how far they can go with it. There are guidelines, but the power we entrust with them requires continual judgment calls on their part. It's frequently abused, but it's necessary. The abusers need to be weeded out and perhaps the new recruits need to be better screened, but this is what being a public servant means.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't think that police are given the same discrtion with home searches that you are suggesting for gun ownership.

    Another toughie:

    1) Police deny a gun purchase using their new mikeb discretionary powers (whim).

    2) In the process, police discover that the rejected buyer already owns guns. What do police do about the already owned guns?

    ReplyDelete
  23. There is no doubt in my mind that under MikeB’s plan I would not be allowed to own guns. Not because the police know me, or because I’ve done something wrong, but because of where I live. I appreciate Southern Beale’s honesty, because that is what we are talking about here; repealing the second amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. TS, I'm intrigued. Why would you be prevented?

    FishyJay, I say again, I'm not talking about "whim." I'm the first one to object to police abuse of power, but we do trust them with certain powers some of which intrinsically contain a certain amount of discretion. The trick is to recruit better police.

    ReplyDelete