But we are supposed to assume that everyone with a gun is good, and will behave responsibly, and with good self control, and lawfully, and not under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, and will be mentally ill. We are supposed to ASSUME, but god forbid we actually ever dare to TEST those assumptions in any meaningful way, or require anything from a gun owner that would encourage, or penalize for failure, to properly supervise and secure and use those deadly dangerous weapons.
That is stupid on the face of it, and is not a plausible or desirable way to address weapons in our society. This one police shooting death is one more than all of the UK, and is far from the only police shooting this year so far in the first month of 2012, despite the state of California having a little more than half the population of the UK. This is certainly not the ONLY law enforcement gun death so far in 2012. Our gun culture, our guns, our gun owners, are responsible for the gun violence that kills people and injures people and which makes people less safe.
From MSNBC.com and the Santa Maria Times:
Police officer shot, killed by fellow officer trying to arrest him
SANTA MARIA, Calif. – A Santa Maria police officer was shot and killed Saturday by a fellow officer who was trying to arrest him for suspected sexual misconduct with a minor, the Santa Maria Times reported.
The slain officer was on duty when police tried to take him into custody early Saturday, the Santa Maria Police Department said in a press release.
The suspect officer allegedly drew his weapon and fired. "In response, one officer on scene fired at the suspect officer hitting him once," officials said in a news release, according to the Times.
The wounded officer was taken to a hospital, where he died.
The name of the slain officer was not released. Authorities said he was being investigated on an allegation of sexual misconduct against a minor.
1. You can't see a categorical difference between a police shooting of a suspect that resists arrest and a murder? That makes me question your judgement.
ReplyDelete2. There are a few bad apples in every group, as you said. To disparage and restrict everyone in that group for the actions of the few is collective punishment.
3. You have yet to offer any test that will take guns away from those who shouldn't have them, without also taking guns away from good owners. You have yet to show how you will prevent criminals from getting guns, since they can get any number of illegal products already on the black market.
4. You refuse to acknowledge any chance of validity to our understanding of rights, but you expect us to see the truth of your position. That's not going to happen.
You can't guarantee in any reliable way who will and who will not be a safe and responsible gun owner.
ReplyDeleteThere is no legitimate need or right to have a weapon. That becomes important when tens of thousands of people die every year, and more are injured by the combination of deliberate and accidental gun fire.
I am more than willing to allow guns to law enforcement, alhough more willing to do so during working hours, and less willing to do so off hours.
Or are you claiming police aren't good people?
Because 40% of the families of police face domestic violence, in which guns were mentioned as one of the key factors.
You essentially want us to trust to the intelligence and goodness of people for the safety of our lives and limbs.
I'm not willing to do so, nor are a lot of other people.
I don't see it as any punishment for you not to carry a lethal weapon around. I don't trust your judgment or your goodness.
I also don't trust the drug use and alcohol use and mental health status of people when it comes to a lethal weapon given no better justification for doing so than you would prefer it that way.
DeleteYour weapon, and particularly carrying it everywhere, is NOT a valid right any more than the divine right of kings is a valid right or the right to own slaves is a valid right.
So you're finally admitting what we've known all along. You oppose private ownership of firearms. No wonder you're so bitter--your side keeps failing in its goals.
ReplyDeleteGreg, there's a big difference between claiming it's not a basic human right and saying it should be eliminated.
ReplyDeleteA big difference, eh? How so? Anything that's not a right can be taken away. Even rights can be taken away when a society doesn't treat rights as sacred. Note that Dog Gone said that there's no need for a firearm, either. Why do all of you work so hard to hide what you really want?
Delete"There is no legitimate need or right to have a weapon."
DeleteSounds like DG is arguing for the removal of all weapons from society.
Yes it CAN be taken away, that doesn't mean it reasonably will be or that we want it to be.
DeleteQuit acting paranoid. You're pretending just to support your intractable position. You know no one's coming for the guns, Greg, and not because of the 2A, but because the US is still pretty-much a free country.
As usual we have a couple of bandolier clutching, hand waving gunzloonz equating someone saying that having gunz is NOT a basic right to them THINKING that nobody should have gunz.
ReplyDeleteDriving is not a basic right (at least as viewed by the folks who make the rules we live by in this country) but there are several hundred MILLIONS of vehicles and over a hundred million licensed drivers in the U.S.
So, once again, giant FAIL of conflation.
I gotta go back to the house and my internet connection with TWC is still not set up so I won't be back today.
We have a basic right to freedom of movement and residence, according to the much referred to Declaration of Human Rights, and driving is the easiest means of fulfilling that right. Imagine if our government tried to ban private ownership of automobiles. But what we see here is one proposal after another to take away guns from private citizens. How can you claim that the ultimate goal of the authors here isn't civilian disarmament?
DeleteDog- "There is no legitimate need or right to have a weapon."
ReplyDeleteThe legitmate need for a weapon is home invasions, not to mention the fact that many gangs now implement a "Murder" initiation. The legitimate right is the Second Amendment. Now I guess you need to give your definition of legitimate.
Demo- "Driving is not a basic right (at least as viewed by the folks who make the rules we live by in this country)" You are correct. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. However, gun ownership is a basic right. That was written by the folks who wrote a document, that we live by in this country.
Wrongo JOB.
DeleteThe possibility of a home invasion is minimal, and protection by law enforcement, and non-lethal means - everything from security systems to non-lethal defense - is an alternative.
As to legitimate right, there have been other 'rights' under the Constitution that were wrong, which were not in fact an actual right. Like the ownership of slavery which was institutionalized under the constitution was not a right after all. Or the fact that the right to women to vote was not in the original document either.
The founding fathers were not the final word, they were fallible, and occasionally wrong. We don't live by the original document; we alter it as needed. The right to a gun is not widely recognized as a legitimate right any more, as evidenced by subsequent declarations of right to which most of the countries of the world have subscribed, and which was drafted under the input and supervision and leadership of the United States. I can't think of any other country which in fact specifies gun ownership as a right, off the top of my head. There IS NOTHING about gun ownership which is properly a 'basic right' which is why I hypothesize it will be dropped.
That is the problem with your assumptions about the 'right' to a gun. It's not a right and it is wrong.
There's that Universal Declaration again. The problem is that it's a bunch of pleasantries, but it's certainly not a comprehensive list, and it has no teeth. It also has no legal force here in the United States, while our Constitution does. We eliminated slavery, and we enacted women's suffrage, but we haven't dumped the Second Amendment, and only someone with delusions could believe that we're going to do so.
DeleteOn the subject of security systems, not everyone can afford a good one, and who wants to wait around for the security patrol or the police to arrive when an invader is in the house? You're welcome to choose that as your security if you wish. We are welcome to make other choices.
J.O.B.
DeleteLook at Dog Gone's response to your concern about home invasions. Her entire response is a giant contradiction:
(a) home invasions don't happen so you don't need a gun, police protection or other defenses.
(b) home invasions do happen so you can count on the police to protect you ... and you won't need a gun or non-lethal measures.
(c) home invasions do happen and you cannot count on the police to protect you so you can use non-lethal means to defend yourself.
And I would have to add from Dog Gone's other recent posts:
(d) you cannot use non-lethal means to defend yourself because you have no right to defend yourself.
To top it all off, I have already pointed out to Dog Gone that non-lethal measures are useless. Some states forbid citizens from owning tasers and stun guns which don't always work and are totally useless against multiple attackers anyway. I also pointed out a recent example where pepper spray failed to incapacitate a woman in her late 50s. And that is fine with Dog Gone because she believes we really have no right to defend ourselves in the first place.
The only thing that matters to Dog Gone is disarming the populace -- and even law enforcement when they are off-duty -- at all cost.
Yes ... Dog Gone has finally stopped beating around the bush. In her mind, there is no legitimate need for or right to firearms and there is no legitimate need for or right to self-defense. These are her words in recent posts and responses.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone is making the classic blunder of trading liberty and rights for the illusion of "safety". What Dog Gone fails to recognize is that government workers and law enforcement officers come from the population just like everyone else. As such, there will be incompetent, apathetic, lazy, and criminal workers among them. Throw in political wrangling and constantly changing priorities and resources and the level of service that any government agency will deliver is nothing short of a lottery. As such it is uncivilized and unconscionable to demand that I entrust the safety and well being of my family to a lottery.
Citizens that own firearms and shrug their civic duty to be safe, responsible and proficient are a disgrace and unAmerican. People like Dog Gone who deny an individual's need and right to defend themselves and to do it effectively is just as disgraceful and unAmerican.
Aw Crunchie, get a better grip on reality.
ReplyDeleteI stated that genuine home invasions are relatively rare - they certainly seem to be more rare than the weekly mass shootings of murder suicides in this country for example, given the decline evidenced in crime statistics.
I don't claim they never occur. I asserted that there were better forms of defense and protection than a firearm for that eventuality - everything from a home security system, to a better set of locks (consistently used) to a dog, to surveillance cameras, as well as better kinds of weapons that are less likely to result in fatalities to anyone - tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, to name a few.
There is a direct correlation to firearms and firearm violence in the home. You are NOT safer having a firearm than not having a firearm, statistically speaking.
I've made a pretty solid challenge to your assertion that a firearm is actually a right, noting that there are other 'rights' defined in the constitution, like slavery, like denying the vote to women and other groups, which we revised and corrected because they were wrong. There is NO genuine right to have a firearm, even if our legal system hasn't caught up with that fact yet, any more than there has ever been a valid right to own other people in slavery.
Fewer guns in this country would result in less violence, less gun violence, less loss of life and injury to law enforcement -- in short, the greater good. That is no illusion. The DELUSION is that your gun is going to keep you safe when odds are that it will not.
Further, unless you can guarantee that your firearm will never be used to violate the rights of someone else NOT TO BE SHOT - in other words to be safe the way you want to be safe - then you do't have a logical base on which to make your claim.
And clearly there are tens of thousands of people who are killed every year by a firearm, or injured, or threatened by one, as well as extensive damage to property, both public and private.
THAT is the valid and legitimate premise for greater limiting of firearms. You can't make a valid argument that liberty is lost by limiting firearms, or that you are safer by having a firearm.
You are on wobbly ground Crunchie. Clearly law enforcemetn IS effective in protecting people; that is what those steadily declining crime numbers prove. So that safety is no illusion, however much you dislike it being true.
Dog Gone,
DeleteWhat about people who live in apartments where dogs aren't allowed? What about people who can't afford a security system and the monthly fees? Your one-size-denied-to-all solution doesn't work in the real world.
I can argue that I'm safer with firearms. Firearms can be used in self defense. They are an effective means of resisting an attack. But more than that, they are my property. I have the right to do as I wish with my property, so long as that doesn't infringe on your rights. Nothing in what I do infringes on you.
You keep asking about your right not to be shot. No one has been shot by my guns while I've owned them. (I have a few war surplus weapons, so who knows about them.) My claim is that no innocent person will ever be shot with my guns. I stake my freedom and reputation on that. If I commit murder, there are consequences that will follow, the same as would follow from vehicular homicide or murder with a knife or a baseball bat or a plastic jug filled with gasoline and on and on. You have the right not to be shot, but I have the right to do as I please, so long as I don't shoot you.
You also argue that we don't have a right to firearms. It's a well established concept that we have the right to self defense. You may disagree, and if you're a pacifist, you have a consistent position, but look at the law and the opinions of social philosophers, and you'll see broad agreement that we have the right to defend ourselves against an act of violence. The right to own and use firearms derives from the right of self defense. A right without the means to exercise that right is no right at all. That's why you deny our right to self defense. You know that in practical terms, self defense requires effective tools to make it possible.
You've said that I have the right to live. That's good in theory, but what happens if someone attempts to kill me? Am I supposed to quote from the Universal Declaration during the attack? You may feel free to make that choice. You may also feel free to choose other means of defending yourself. What you may not do is deny us our legitimate choices.
GC writes:
DeleteWhat about people who live in apartments where dogs aren't allowed? What about people who can't afford a security system and the monthly fees? Your one-size-denied-to-all solution doesn't work in the real world.
There are plenty of effective solutions including locks which are cheaper than your firearms and which do not endanger others the way your firearms do.
I can argue that I'm safer with firearms. You cannot make a persuasive or logically valid claim of that so long as it is evident that you are not safe - as in keeping your weapon unsecured while you sleep - and so long as there is clear evidence statistically that guns in the home equate to greater gun violence, injury and death in the home, and so long as there are so very many cases of personal firearms injuring other people who are innocent victims.
You have a right to defend yourself, you have a right to live in a civil society where there is a functional and effective security through law enforcement. That does not give you or anyone else a right to a lethal weapon which can and does injure others as well as complicating the role of law enforcement.
Clearly, with far stricter and effective limiting gun control, there is less gun violence, and notably far fewer instances of violent death to law enforcement officers as well.
A right to self defense is not the same as a right to a lethal weapon, one of the many false conflations you make.
Dog Gone,
DeleteYou state that we "... have a right to live in a society where there is functional and effective security through law enforcement".
Law enforcement is not security. Law enforcement tries to catch law breakers after the fact. That is why we call them law enforcement, not "security". Law enforcement is not intended and will never be able to provide personal security. In case that isn't sinking in, I can point you to the 1,246,248 violent crimes reported in the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Report. I can also point you to average 911 response times on the order of 10 minutes and horribly longer in many large cities. I doubt that satisfies anyone's definition of "functional and effective security".
As for locks, a criminal can throw a brick through a window and be inside a home within a few seconds from the first sound. Or a criminal could use a drill bit and a battery powered drill to quietly drill out the lock in the middle of the night and sneak in. Or do that in the day to a back door when no one is home and wait inside for the homeowner to return. Or the criminal could just wait in the bushes for the homeowner to walk up to the front door and then force their way inside.
And now you state that we do have a right to self defense? What changed? What is the source of that right?
Dog Gone said, "Clearly law enforcemetn IS effective in protecting people; that is what those steadily declining crime numbers prove."
DeleteHow do you know that crime has declined because of law enforcement? And even if it is, the rate of violent crime incidents that would be decreasing would be repeat offenses from experienced, hardened criminals -- in other words recidivism.
Don't get me wrong; that is great if law enforcement and the criminal justice system are reducing recidivism. That doesn't change the fact that we still had at least 1.2 million violent crimes in 2010. And it doesn't change the fact that law enforcement are not personal security guards. Law enforcement cannot act until someone reports an attack. And we all know that law enforcement response times inhibit their ability to prevent most serious injuries or murders.
THIS was one of the best sources to debunk the fears expressed by Crunchie and others regarding his hysteria over home invasions:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.homeinvasionnews.com/if-you-see-these-home-invasion-statistics-dont-look/
Well done!
So you point us to some blog on the subject? Great piece of evidence, that.
DeleteYou can't show that my firearms endanger anyone. I have a good argument against your notion, in fact, since my guns haven't hurt anyone. You have yet to tell me how the gun on my nightstand endangers anyone. You have yet to explain how an unauthorized person is going to sneak in and take my handgun while I'm asleep. You can't show that the gun that I carry has hurt anyone. The same is true for millions of other gun owners. Until you can, you're just trying to trump up false accusations for the purpose of taking away guns from private citizens.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteNow we are back to numbers and correlations. As I pointed out, correlations do not indicate cause and effect. As for your assertion that people with firearms in their homes suffer more firearm injuries than others, please state exactly what you are claiming and your sources.
Assuming that you meant that homes with firearms suffer more firearm injuries than homes without firearms, that would neither surprise me nor worry me. IF homes where citizens have firearms suffer more firearm injuries than homes without firearms, I can assure you that they are much safer overall in terms of both property and violent crime. I'll happily take on a slightly higher probability of a firearm injury to drastically reduce the probability that a criminal will physically harm me or my family in my home. And another huge benefit is that I can take proactive measures (proper training, use, and safe storage) to all but eliminate any risk of injury from a firearm in my home. I have no such option to affect change in the criminal element.
But let's talk about the numbers. You know from the FBI Uniform Crime reports that, for the past couple years, there are about 9000 murders annually where the criminal used a firearm to murder the victim. Here's the kicker: about 90% of those are criminals murdering other criminals during criminal actions. That means there are only about 900 citizens murdered annually with firearms. I can assure you that citizens use firearms to protect themselves from sexual assualt, great bodily harm, and murder more than 900 times a year. And yes, I will find the sources for those last two assertions.
Now I know you would love to eliminate the additional 20,000 or so suicides every year -- and so would I -- and I am not going to put families at risk of harm to save 20,000 people who took their own lives. The same goes for the 8,100 criminals that murder each other.
Here is a first source for my assertion that most murders are criminals attacking other criminals:
Deletehttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm
And a related article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-30-baltvictims_N.htm
Dog- I know I'm new here. but your statement is absolute non-sense. Your challenge to firearm ownership is absurd. I'm sorry to say, but you are the one who is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own guns. Unless there is an Amendment passed, owning firearms is legal, and also a right. Owning slaves was never a right. You will not find that in the constitution. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, but owning slaves was never a right afforded us in the constitution.
"The right to a gun is not widely recognized as a legitimate right any more, as evidenced by subsequent declarations of right to which most of the countries of the world have subscribed, and which was drafted under the input and supervision and leadership of the United States. I can't think of any other country which in fact specifies gun ownership as a right, off the top of my head. There IS NOTHING about gun ownership which is properly a 'basic right' which is why I hypothesize it will be dropped."
This entire statement is laughable. The declaration of rights of other countries has no bearing on our country. If it was drafted with the aid of the U.S. government, one could argue that it's because America doesn't want other countries citizens armed. Maybe in case of an invasion?
In closing, gun ownership is 100% a right. One last point, is that the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution is the Bill of Rights. Not the Bill of Wrongs.