Balderama was in the southern bathroom arguing with his girlfriend, according to the affidavit, when another woman who was staying in the home wanted to use the bathroom to change her clothes before going to bed. The woman's boyfriend, Ernest Villa, 23, told her to go use the other bathroom at the other end of the mobile home, but then must have confronted Balderama, who then allegedly shot him in the head.One of the pro-gun arguments is that we should focus more on the violent criminals rather than the guns. They always make this argument as if it's a question of either/or, as if we can't do both. Sometimes they go so far as to accuse gun control folks of being easy on criminals, of wanting too lenient sentences.
Balderama then left the bathroom and walked out into the living room, where he was confronted by Jaime Perez, who was watching a movie with his girlfriend Megan Ortiz, who lives in the home.
Balderama then allegedly shot both Perez and Ortiz. Balderama also allegedly shot at Patrick Dominguez, as he went to assist his cousin, Megan Ortiz, after she had been shot.
There all lies. Alejandro Balderama is a perfect example. I don't think anyone wants a guy like that to get a light sentence and to be released in a short time, I know I don't. But what I see as a major contributory factor in violence like this is the easy access to guns by criminals, the violent and the mentally ill. And this is something we can do something about.
When forced to look at this, the gun-rights argument often says criminals will always get guns, there's nothing we can do about it. That's another lie. The truth is gun owners don't want to be inconvenienced themselves. Proper gun control would result in a certain increase in the inconvenient processes which no one likes to deal with. But in order to screen out the unfit individuals among them, this would be necessary. But rather than accpet that as part of the deal, for everyone's good, the gun-rights folks go to any extreme to oppose even the most common-sense and reasonable restrictions - all for their own convenience.
Has there ever been a more self-centered and short-sighted movement among us than the gun-rights movement? Has there ever been one that costs more lives?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I am seeing more of the reasoning behind the wanting to place more restrictions on gun rights. It is a fine line we are attempting to walk in respecting gun owners rights and keeping criminals away from them.
ReplyDeleteEnforcing existing laws would be a good start, but I am not sure prolonging prison sentences is the answer - unless we plan to keep them in jail forever. One of the biggest problems pointed out by others is the proliferation of guns in society. As gun owners point out, they fear registration because the government will know what they possess and have the ability to take it away. As a hypothetical compromise, maybe from a certain date, all "newly" purchased guns will need to be registered, but existing guns would be grandfathered in. This would still provide a way for use to attempt to get a handle on the number of guns, but also satisfy those who believe they may need them to oppose a overreaching government.
I for one know I do not have all the answers but will always be receptive to ideas to make society safer.
PJ, one of the problems I have with your proposal is that it creates a double standard which is unfair on a go forward basis to past and future gun owners.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we are safe from the current firearms. Some owners are lawful; then we have others who - like Anonymous - are clearly NOT willing to abide by any laws on the basis of whatever whim they have at a moment, and who clearly do not respect the rights of others.
We NEED to resolve this problem, and do so in a way that is fair, and reasonable, and which limits guns, in a way which makes us ALL safer, but which also still allows people who enjoy shooting sports and hunting to enjoy those activities.
We need to take a long hard practical look at how to balance conflicting rights fairly. That is NOT by catering to the whims of those who oppose any regulation, no matter how unsafe that makes others, which appears to be the attitude of Greg Camp, for example.
Greg's argument that HIS guns are safe reminds me of a conversation that I had once with a friend of mine who was an inveterate breaker of speed limit laws.
When I pointed to the statistics that showed that far fewer accidents occurred when speeds were 55 rather than 65 or 70, he felt that should not apply to him because he was a safe driver. I pointed out to him that even safe drivers could have accidents, and that the reason for that was because there were too many variables to control - an unsafe or older less well designed section of road for example (we were speaking primarily of long distance trips in unfamiliar or less familiar areas, not so much our own local roads). And of course, the risks of other less skilled drivers, the problems with unexpected events, like tire tread or other items flying off of a semi traveling at higher speeds, animals or debris unexpectedly in the roadway, or obstruction from other vehicles in an accident, etc.
He consistently insisted that didn't matter because HE wouldn't have an accident.
I asked him if he understood what an accident WAS, that it was by definition an unplanned event, and that his own estimation (I think OVER estimation) of his driving skills did not invalidate the larger statistics.
Concealed carry or open carry, none of these people plan to have a mistake - be it accident or bad choice to shoot or some other event -that wrongly harms other people. But people ARE wrongly harmed, every day; far more of them than appear to be helped by personal carry other than by law enforcement.
People ARE harmed every day by inadequate storage and security of firearms. People ARE harmed every day by firearms that started out as legal sales from the manufacturer that go wrong and end up in illegal hands -- way too damned many. And those people whose personal firearms ended up in the hands of criminals just by more, and intransigently repeat their mistakes.
I suppose that you're suggestion that Balderama went to a licensed gun store to obtain his gun? Oh, but wait, according to the news article, he already had a record. That means that he either stole his gun or bought it on the street. If the latter, he probably bought it from another lowlife.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that Balderama would have acquired a gun somehow. What you can't explain is how making it more difficult for me to buy and then carry a gun will keep this goblin from committing a crime.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your speed limit comments, I do oppose speed limits on many roads.
Now that the shock has dissipated, let me explain. Driving is a risk. That's life. I slow down when the road is wet or icy or when there's a strong crosswind, but on a dry road with good visibility, I know how fast I can drive my vehicle and reasonably expect to arrive alive.
You want the government to protect you from yourself and from me. I don't want the government to keep me safe, except from foreign invasion. I want the government to create an environment in which I can achieve.
An accident is, by definition, something bad, damaging, or injurious that you do not plan to happen.
ReplyDeleteBecause it is unplanned, you cannot and do not limit the damage from that event to yourself.
THAT is why we have traffic laws.
Further, there are far more factors involved than the ones you identify, which can include the age and wear, and maintenance, of other vehicles on the road.
Now we could take your scenario, where you are convinced you can pick the rate of speed, and estimate the weather conditions, etc. -- and all that would be fine and good, IF you were the only person on the road.
You are not, and therefore in order to allow the greatest possible number of people the access to traveling on those roads, be it for business or pleasure, we set reasonable rules and laws, like speed limits, which have a very specific upper and lower range, because the smaller that range of speeds in which we travel, the safer we all are, and the more manageable the risks are. When you make that range larger, with a greater variety of speeds, you have far far greater risks, risks that are a multiplier of any other factor, like weather conditions.
I want the greatest safety and the greatest freedom for the largest number of people. You are impressing me less and less with your understanding of risk. What I am seeing from you is that you are willing to put what you want above what is safe and that you don't care about risk to others if it gets in the way of what you want.
I don't want absolute safety; but I don't like individuals who endanger others, taking away from them both their choice and their safety.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHow dull. I accept the risk. Anyone who takes to the road had to do so. If you're unwilling to fight the good fight, stick to public transportation. Someone else will cradle you.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"Dog Gone,
How dull.
No, it's not dull; it is mature, rational, and objective. Roads are designed and built with an estimation and assessment of the variety of vehicles that will travel on them. The design elements selected reflect that use, and the midpoint of the speed range designated also reflects that design and use. In particular, having safe roads is essential to commercial traffic, not just private transportation. So, apparently you are not only an anarchist, you are anti-capitalism, and oppose the provisions of the U.S. Constitution which direct the providing for the common good - of which speed limits are just one example. Wow, I guess that makes you unpatriotic and anti-business all at one time. Imagine that.
You would put your assessment- right or wrong - above the safety of everyone else. Classic gun nut thinking, which is a very childish and simplistic approach to designating speed limits. In your world it is all about you, all the time and only you. That is anarchy, not a well ordered society. It is also the intersection of insanity, stupidity, and immaturity.
It is what you get when there is a lack of adult thinking.
I accept the risk.
So long as you are not the only one paying for that road, and not the only one driving on that road, you don't get to accept or reject that risk. NOT your decision to make, and if you act otherwise, you could find yourself in jail, or you could very possibly kill someone else and it would be YOUR fault.
Not that YOU care.
Anyone who takes to the road had to do so.
No. They don't. That is why we have traffic law enforcement. YOU don't get to choose the risk exposure that you would like to inflict on the rest of us.
You don't really want freedom, except from responsibility or participation in a genuinely free CIVIL society.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHow about we make a deal: You can have California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey with walls around their borders. Inside, no one, except for elite units of law enforcement, will be allowed to have firearms. I'll even give you New York, so long as there are safe passage corridors into the free states of New England. In that domain, you may ban whatever makes you nervous. You may distribute rights as you wish. You may declare the territory to be a utopia.
I'll stay in the United States.
Really, you think that we gun owners are such a danger to you--I don't understand this. Yes, there are accidents and crimes, but the numbers are not high enough to justify curtailing our rights. The vast majority of us aren't going to hurt you. Put the few who do commit crimes in prison, and leave the rest of us alone.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHow about we make a deal: You can have California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey with walls around their borders.
How about not, since you have no authority to make that offer and I have none to accept it. How about instead, you treat public roads as you know - PUBLIC, and not your personal playground.
If you want to go fast, get a suitable car, the suit, the helmet, some training and a fast car and take it out on the track where it is designed for speed. That's what I do. Car, motorcycle, whichever you prefer for some wheel time that isn't dull. I also enjoy off-road driving in some pretty challenging areas, but maybe that isn't your cup o' tea. I prefer to drive vehicles with a stick shift, and am comfortable doing so from either side, depending on the country in which I'm driving.
Inside, no one, except for elite units of law enforcement, will be allowed to have firearms. I'll even give you New York, so long as there are safe passage corridors into the free states of New England.
So, have you had this problem confusing crappy movies and other cheap fiction with reality for long?
In that domain, you may ban whatever makes you nervous. You may distribute rights as you wish. You may declare the territory to be a utopia.
Wow, all that from being objective about highway safety and a safe and civil society. That's quite a leap, but then you seem to live most of your time in your imagination rather than out here with the rest of us.
I'll stay in the United States.
I've had the privilege of traveling to most of the 50 states, along with a number of other countries. I'm not so sure you know the real U.S.; you seem better acquainted with your imaginary one.
Really, you think that we gun owners are such a danger to you--I don't understand this.
That is because you deliberately ignore our gun related statistics, and the statistics of the rest of the world. You just ignore what facts conflict with your desire, the epitome of the phrase "don't confuse me with the facts".
Yes, there are accidents and crimes, but the numbers are not high enough to justify curtailing our rights.
YES, they ARE. Particularly since we have some of the worst numbers in the entire world.
The vast majority of us aren't going to hurt you. If the numbers were lower, if the numbers were consistent with the same stats in countries that DO regulate firearms more strictly, you could make that statement with some honesty. The numbers show that we have high numbers of homicides, suicides, domestic violence, and accidents with guns. You don't care.
The numbers show that crime has been declining for decades, demonstrating that there is NOT a genuine need for carrying a person firearm for protection. You don't care, because it is not about a real need for self-defense anyway when you carry.
Put the few who do commit crimes in prison, and leave the rest of us alone.
We already incarcerate more people than any other country in the world. If THAT was a solution we wouldn't have the problems with crime or with guns that we do. It is expensive, and it doesn't work. So there are excellent reasons for doing what DOES work to get those lower numbers, and all your claims about 'freedom' is just giving lip service to it, while ignoring real freedom - safety, security, the absence of having to worry about what is done with the wrong people having too many guns.
And so far, the stuff your spouting, doesn't impress me that you have the sense god gave a dog to use that potentially lethal force wisely, because you spout bullshit and then want us all to pretend it smells like perfume.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised that you missed the point, perhaps deliberately. I wasn't proposing driving laws. I was suggesting that gun control advocates could have the states where they already run the show and the rest of the states could enjoy freedom.
That's basically how it is now. The Supreme Court gave its typically minimalist interpretation and left regulation up to the states and Congress. Congress and most states are doing what I want done. There are a few states that are excessively restrictive, and I hope that you enjoy them. The South thought that it could restrict civil rights too, but it learned that ultimately, the Federal Constitution will have its way.
Looking at our history, and looking at the trends worldwide, you're on the wrong side of the curve Greg.
ReplyDeleteFewer guns are inevitable; stricter regulation is inevitable. People don't like mass shootings, they don't like crime, and they are starting to notice how expensive it is to lock people up.
Watch the 99%.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThen why are more and more states allowing concealed carry, either under a shall-issue system or without the need for a license? Why do states expand reciprocity agreements more and more, even without H.R. 822? Why do the Brady Bunch scores go lower and lower as the years go by? And why did that latest Gallup poll on attitudes related to guns show the best numbers (from my perspective) in decades?
Misinformation, single-issue voters, a lot of money spread around by the NRA...
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteOr could it be that many people disagree with your position and vote for what they want, not what you want?
Greg, You're getting less reasonable all the time. Case in point, this question.
ReplyDelete"What you can't explain is how making it more difficult for me to buy and then carry a gun will keep this goblin from committing a crime."
The point I keep making is that ALL guns used in crime are starting out as the legally owned property of some gun dealer or gun owner like you. Stricter laws will prevent some or most of the guns which are continually flowing into the criminal world from doing so.
And, you would be inconvenienced, but only minimally. Why do you resist it so?
"Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHow dull. I accept the risk. Anyone who takes to the road had to do so. If you're unwilling to fight the good fight, stick to public transportation. Someone else will cradle you.
November 10, 2011 6:57 PM"
I think it's safe to say that Greg Camp has no concern for anyone's safety or comfort, except his own.
"I'll pick the speed limit that I want to obey. Allayou commies can have the commiestates, as long as we can have "Free New England".
Gee, Greg, how very kind of you. I think that sort of thing was tried, 'bout 150 years ago; it was a shitty outcome for the people who wanted to take their half of the nation and go home.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI resist your proposals because they won't keep criminals from getting guns. They will only make things harder for law-abiding citizens. They will only make it easier for the government to take our guns away eventually.
Gun grabbers make a big deal out of guns crossing the border into Mexico. Imagine that we ban all manner of guns or require background checks on all gun purchases. Do you think that criminals will have any trouble adding shipments of guns into the drugs in bulk that come into the country? We can't stop cocaine and meth from coming in. How hard would it be to add firearms?
No law can stop a criminal from committing crimes. What law can do is punish those who do bad acts. I support punishing anyone who uses a firearm to commit a crime. I oppose deciding in advance who is going to be a criminal.
Greg, ignorance is bliss.
ReplyDeleteAnd you appear to be in a state of blissful ignorance when you write:
"No law can stop a criminal from committing crimes."
So you would disagree with those libertarians and other right wingers / conservatives who argue for the death penalty as a deterrent?
It isn't. But it appears other laws are. There is an entire area of research called crime deterrence theory which performs an analysis of what does deter crime and what does not, versus the intuitive (mistakenly called common sense) ideas about it.
Here is what Greg and the other pro-gunners need to know about the reality of crime deterrence, not the bullshit fiction they present as fact when it is factually in error:
ReplyDeleteThe economics of crime deterrence: a survey of theory and evidence
S Cameron - Kyklos, 1988 - Wiley Online Library
* Adjunct Associate Professor of Economics, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA 1. We follow
most economists in looking only at certainty and severity of punish- ment rather than at forms
of punishment hence rehabilitative schemas such as therapy and education for prisoners ...
Cited by 258 - Related articles - All 6 versions
INTEGRATING CELERITY, IMPULSIVITY, AND EXTRALEGAL SANCTION THREATS INTO A MODEL OF GENERAL DETERRENCE: THEORY AND EVIDENCE*
DS Nagin… - Criminology, 2001 - Wiley Online Library
... 295) recognize the complications that alternative sources of conformance pose for deterrence
theory: There is no basis for presuming that other (extralegal) influences are somehow “controlled”
when the bivariate relationship between legal sanctions and crime is measured. ...
Cited by 160 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 5 versions
Crime, deterrence, and rational choice
[PDF] from washington.eduI Piliavin, R Gartner, C Thornton… - American Sociological …, 1986 - JSTOR
... Unfortunately, despite numerous calls for a general theory of deterrence, nearly all of the empirical
research on the issue takes as its ... A more fruitful approach to the issue of deterrence would
examine the re- lationship between formal sanctions and crime from within an ...
Cited by 221 - Related articles - All 6 versions
Does punishment deter crime?
G Tullock - The Public Interest, 1974 - ncjrs.gov
... THAN ECONOMISTS AND GENERALLY INTENDING TO CONFIRM THE CONVENTIONAL
BELIEF AMONG SOCIOLOGISTS THAT CRIME CANNOT BE DETERRED BY PUNISHMENT,
ALSO HAVE PRODUCED EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE DETERRENCE THEORY. ...
Cited by 109 - Related articles - Cached - All 3 versions
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to quote sources, would you give the whole relevant quotation?
I'm well aware that the death penalty does not deter crime. It may be a just punishment, but it's not a deterrent. The only people who are deterred by the law are rational people--the ones who aren't a problem in the first place. One job of the law is to remove bad actors from society. If they can be reformed, then I'll welcome them back in.
I do not oppose the death penalty on principle, but I do think that given the errors and other problems in capital cases, a life sentence makes more sense. A murderer or a rapist (yes, I know there's no death penalty for rape, alas) does not deserve to live. The question is whether we're smart enough to identify such goblins perfectly.
To forestall what I imagine you'll write in response, when someone is posing an immediate threat to my life, that's a different matter. The convicted murderer is not a direct threat to anyone, but someone attacking me is.
I quoted an entire area of study, suggesting you should peruse it to understand what deters crime and what does not.
ReplyDeleteThat entire field of study addresses, by measurement, correlation analysis, and finding causal correlations, what does and does not work to stop crimes from occurring in the first place -including LAW, not just the death penalty. While the death penalty does not act as an effective deterrent, that does not mean that NO law does so.
What DOES NOT work is simply having longer or harsher prison sentences.
Law do work, and to assert that all criminals lack the capacity for rational thought is false. That it is demonstrably false is evident from reading a cross section of studies from this field of research.
Once again you are simplistic in your understanding, lacking a factual basis for your statements, and spouting ideology instead of logical reasoning and critical thinking.
When you speak of teaching critical thinking to your students, I have to wonder if you have a mastery of it yourself, from which to instruct them.
I believe I reason critically, and have most of my life, not just my adult life. Laci has a degree in PPE - political science, philosophy of logic and rhetoric, and economics. So long as I meet his criteria for reasoning critically, I feel I am in good company and thinking critically and correctly. (You may notice that Laci and I usually agree, and come to the same conclusions from approximately the same or at least similar analysis.)
Show me something other than an uninformed, not-fact-based opinion that crime is not deterred by law, and that all criminal, or a majority of criminals, are incapable of rational thinking.
Expect your sources to be challenged, because the preponderance of the data available suggests otherwise.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThere are more matters to consider in criminal justice than mere deterrence. We must also account for justice. A wrong act must be answered.
The question of deterrence is not my area, so I'll defer to your knowledge on that subject. But it is also irrelevant to the discussion in this article. I don't carry a handgun for the general value of deterrence. It's concealed. It could deter a crime in progress, as the bad guy might decide to leave me alone upon seeing it, but I don't rely on that, either.
My argument is based on my system of values. While I find psychology and sociology interesting, I do not depend on those for forming my positions. I'm interested in what is right and wrong.
I did assert that only rational people are deterred by the law, and I stand by that. The criminal acts that we're debating here are not rational. They may seem so to the person committing them, but as Socrates said, no one knowingly does wrong.
"There are more matters to consider in criminal justice than mere deterrence. We must also account for justice. A wrong act must be answered."
ReplyDeleteThat's not justice, it's retaliation.
"My argument is based on my system of values. While I find psychology and sociology interesting, I do not depend on those for forming my positions. I'm interested in what is right and wrong.".
Vigilante justice, which you are a proponent of, is always subjective. Back in the good ol' days, hoss thieves were hanged--for a property crime. That's some pretty fucked up system of values.
You claim to be a fan of the vikings' "rule of law", yes? So, you must be familiar with and approve of the "Butterfly Cut". Yep, that'll keep them perps in line.
Deomocommie,
ReplyDeleteActually, horse thieves in the Old West were a threat to the life of the owner. A horse was an important possession. To steal a horse was to steal the owner's ability to travel in an age without many alternatives. It potentially stranded the owner in the wilderness.
That's more than just a property crime, eh?
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"Actually, horse thieves in the Old West were a threat to the life of the owner. A horse was an important possession. To steal a horse was to steal the owner's ability to travel in an age without many alternatives. It potentially stranded the owner in the wilderness.
That's more than just a property crime, eh? "
They also hung rustlers who stole cattle, which was not about stranding anyone. Further, people were quite capable of transporting themselves on foot, and many did - indeed much terrain was not negotiable on horseback.
Horses in the west were fairly readily available wild, and people often caught and 'broke' them for riding purposes, and in the early days, the cattle which were rounded up were also wild, not from any breeding program.
So the idea of ownership of an animal that you didn't purchase but simply 'grabbed' yourself is kind of an interesting one.
Rather Greg, this was entirely about killing people over 'mere property'.
Here's a good place to get some idea of what the "vigilante" movement was about:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-vigilantelist.html
Some of the groups were careful about following the rule of law, most of them, not so much.
The vigilante groups were, in many cases, extra legal posses formed by groups of ranchers. Their ostensible purpose was to stop PROPERTY crimes against the ranchers. There is no way of knowing, since all those hanged were dead, whether they had in fact been guilty of thievery or any other crimes, since they never had a trial.
"Rough justice" is not justice, it's vengeance and retaliation.
Greg said, in a fit of self-justification, "I resist your proposals because they won't keep criminals from getting guns. They will only make things harder for law-abiding citizens. They will only make it easier for the government to take our guns away eventually."
ReplyDelete1. My proposals would keep some criminals from getting guns, maybe many, matbe most.
2. My proposals will make it minimally harder for lawful people who qualify to own guns.
3. The government is not going to take away your guns. Please don't tell me you believe that bullshit.
they won't keep criminals from getting guns. They will only make things harder for law-abiding citizens. They will only make it easier for the government to take our guns away eventually.
ReplyDeleteThe same tired old shit.
The problem is that if it makes it harder for "law abiding citizens", it also makes it harder for criminals.
The people who say that shit have never dealt with criminals on a regular basis--they are lazy.
The current system makes it easy for criminals to get guns with no penalties for their suppliers.
Does that make sense?
Yes, Mikeb302000, I do believe that your proposals would lead to the end of private ownership of firearms. They would lead to the end of the right of self defense. Look at England and Canada. Private ownership is limited, and if anyone uses a gun in self defense, the presumption is that that person is in the wrong.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000, you can't get around the fact that you told us that you want to cut the number of gun owners in half. How would you go about doing that? Begging us to give up our guns? What will you do when we refuse?
There is no "right" to use deadly force for self-defence.
ReplyDeleteSelf-defence is a mitigating circumstance.
Only reasonable force necessary to stop the threat is proper for self-defence.
Unless life is not valuable.
"Mikeb302000, you can't get around the fact that you told us that you want to cut the number of gun owners in half. How would you go about doing that? Begging us to give up our guns? What will you do when we refuse?
ReplyDeleteNovember 13, 2011 10:36 PM"
We aren't begging anyone. We have tried to appeal to those who have some sort of reasonable opinions about how limiting access to firearms might cut down on the carnage. Obviously, when people won't listen to reason, the majority, both those who own and those who don't own guns, will attempt to change the law. What will you do if the law's changed? I think I already know the answer to that question.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYes, you do keep saying that self defense is a mitigating factor. Mitigation comes into play when a person has been shown to have committed a criminal act. An act of self defense that results in a killing is a justifiable homicide--in other words, not a crime.
You also tell me that rights are not absolute. That's true about the right to life, no? Someone who attempts to kill an innocent person gives up his own right to life.
Democommie,
You may get the law changed, but not for a long time. American gun owners saw what your kind are up to with the Assault Weapons Ban, and we won't be fooled or lulled into inaction.