tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post2131009832722602380..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Message from Frail Liberty on the 4 RulesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-12192745893510731532012-09-15T16:48:17.430+02:002012-09-15T16:48:17.430+02:00Nope, sorry man. You keep overlapping intentional...Nope, sorry man. You keep overlapping intentional and negligent and those do not play together for the purposes of this discussion.<br /><br />The topic here is that you think the law should deal with negligent discharges and other types of irresponsible behavior with a gun (i.e. like leaving them where a child can get them) with a one strike and you lose all gun rights forever policy.<br /><br />This is not a discussion about other gun control schemes (presumably) intended to reduce intentional gun violence.<br /><br />You are trying to say that cars and guns are apples and oranges - and in many ways you are correct. That is certainly correct with regards to intentional homicide and/or harm. Without looking up data, I can say with confidence that guns are used much more frequently than cars to intentionally kill or mame people.<br /><br />But, cars and guns are also apples and oranges with respect to how frequently they are used to protect with guns being far more protective against crime (at least at the moment a crime is occurring) than vehicles. (FWIW, transportation is also not specifically enumerated in the Constitution also making it apples and oranges ... but that is a different topic.)<br /><br />So it is in the area of recklessness is where we find the two of them being very similar and worth of analogizing.<br /><br />We have shown rather clearly that reckless behavior with 4,000 lbs vehicles cause much more harm in the U.S. every year than reckless behaviour with guns. I gave you a personal example from my family of irresponsible behaviour with a vehicle that very easily could have killed two of my nieces.<br /><br />I want to know what, in your mind, makes the one so much more worthy of punitive legal action than the other.<br /><br />(And please don't try to tell me it is not punitive. Removing a right from a any citizen is ALWAYS punitive - sometimes it is justified, but it is still punitive).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-28852022313885734182012-09-15T10:01:12.543+02:002012-09-15T10:01:12.543+02:00I don't. Since you've sucked me into this...I don't. Since you've sucked me into this comparison, I feel guns should be regulated like cars are. The result would be something like this:<br /><br />Let's imagine guns controlled like cars.<br /><br />guns - 5,000 deaths<br />cars - 40,000 deathsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-71966656868095537042012-09-15T04:57:49.340+02:002012-09-15T04:57:49.340+02:00Exactly so. Here in Arkansas, we're required ...Exactly so. Here in Arkansas, we're required to keep a carry gun concealed. I buy my clothes with that in mind.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-90739796960592142652012-09-14T14:14:39.362+02:002012-09-14T14:14:39.362+02:00That argument actually does carry some validity in...That argument actually does carry some validity in my opinion. <br /><br />It is, however, made completely moot by the fact that the weapons are concealed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63552495779709880592012-09-14T09:18:11.140+02:002012-09-14T09:18:11.140+02:00For me, the argument that rowdy college students w...For me, the argument that rowdy college students would be too dangerous if allowed to have guns is secondary. The primary reason guns on campuses is a bad idea is because it would interfere with the professor/student relationship. The gun can be and often is a tacit threat. I know you guys don't like to admit it, but non-gun people see it that way, right or wrong. This would cause problems in the learning environment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-20743542820543157402012-09-14T04:55:11.861+02:002012-09-14T04:55:11.861+02:00Exactly. I've said those very things to Mikeb...Exactly. I've said those very things to Mikeb time and again, but it does no good. Critical thinking is not to be found on the gun control side.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-47886343761423685132012-09-14T04:49:08.282+02:002012-09-14T04:49:08.282+02:00Ok, lets ...
You are trying to divert the argumen...Ok, lets ...<br /><br />You are trying to divert the argument ... again. I won't even get into rebutting your chosen numbers because it doesn't matter. The whole subject here is negligent ownership and handling (what the media commonly calls accidents). The subject is not about overall death count from either tool.<br /><br />We can have a discussion the overall numbers and what legislation has done to both and all about unintended consequences that don't get factored in to the total impact on society and individuals. But that would be a diversion.<br /><br />This conversation is about why you think our legal system should treat reckless actions with guns so differently than reckless actions with vehicles.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-14946400811677930862012-09-13T20:01:32.783+02:002012-09-13T20:01:32.783+02:00OK, let's continue.
gun deaths in spite of no...OK, let's continue.<br /><br />gun deaths in spite of no real gun control - 30,000<br />car deaths in spite of very real controls - 40,000<br /><br />Let's imagine guns controlled like cars.<br /><br />guns - 5,000<br />cars - 40,000<br /><br />Let's imaging cars controlled like guns.<br /><br />guns - 30,000<br />cars - 100,000Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-53223367362453908232012-09-13T15:28:58.167+02:002012-09-13T15:28:58.167+02:00Thanks. My place of work is the primary reason I ...Thanks. My place of work is the primary reason I post and tweet under a pseudonym. The administration at our school is aggressively involved in suppressing gun rights.<br /><br />I have acquaintances with a few mid to high level staff in the Provost's and President's offices and so I don't dare, at this point, risk outing myself as a gun-rights and campus carry supporter.<br /><br />It really ironic, in fact, that academia is supposed be a place of free flowing ideas and evaluation of evidence. Yet, we consistently hear the emotionally driven arguments that college kids drink and guns and alcohol don't mix. Instead of looking at the many facts of the situation ... such as:<br /><br />1. Faculty and Staff are also impacted by the arbitrary boundary<br />2. The vast majority of undergraduates would not be of legal age to carry anyway<br />3. Those that do are still trained in the law, and are already trusted by the state to carry everywhere else except campusAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-78978804096529090772012-09-13T14:08:10.105+02:002012-09-13T14:08:10.105+02:00I'm right with you up until the part about a g...I'm right with you up until the part about a gun is only for killing. While that is certainly true in one sense, it belies the fact that it is the lethality of the tool that makes it so effective at protection.<br /><br />We do not measure the effectiveness of a police officers gun by how many lives it has been used to take. But rather, we acknowledge that the tool, even when holstered, severs to protect both the officer and the lives others around him/her. Therefore it's actual useful purpose is the opposite of killing.<br /><br />But, that is a diversion anyway. The other factors you bring up are valid comparisons. And yet the FACT remains that in-spite of the regulations on vehicles, irresponsible ownership and operation still kills and injures many more people each day than firearms. All of those deaths and injuries are 100% preventable - and yet we tolerate them as 'accidents' and 'mistakes'.<br /><br />So if you want to have a discussion about what regulations are appropriate for firearms vs. vehicles - we can talk about that all day and much of it would be apples and oranges. But that is NOT what we are talking about - is it?<br /><br />The topic is dealing with reckless actions while using either tool - and on that topic you are 100% wrong. It is just about as apples to apples as one can get.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-28568202314438342622012-09-13T13:43:11.781+02:002012-09-13T13:43:11.781+02:00All right, if you insist.
Cars are already regu...All right, if you insist. <br /><br />Cars are already regulated. There's licensing for drivers, registration for vehicles, yearly inspections and insurance requirements.<br /><br />Please don't tell me about all the unregistered cars that are on private land. That argument is bullshit, but whenever we get into it, that's what comes up, because this is a losing argument for you.<br /><br />The reason I reject the comparison is because a gun is not just another inanimate object that we may or may not own. It's a weapon, and as such is subject to special consideration. A car is for transport, a refrigerator is to keep your stuff cold, a gun is for killing. Each is subject to appropriate regulations according to its intended use. <br /><br />So, like I said, the comparison is worse than apples and oranges, which are at least both fruit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-27571346353514319892012-09-12T21:16:02.667+02:002012-09-12T21:16:02.667+02:00But they are not so far apart when it comes to the...But they are not so far apart when it comes to the effect of irresponsible ownership and operation. In fact, they are darned near identical.<br /><br />Again, I ask a specific question: What is so different about them that deadly irresponsible behavior with one warrants zero tolerance more than deadly irresponsible behavior with the other?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43217628014942886912012-09-12T20:57:24.700+02:002012-09-12T20:57:24.700+02:00You don't see how I can say the comparison is ...You don't see how I can say the comparison is weak, perhaps, because you think it supports your argument.<br /><br />Apples and oranges are at least both fruit. Cars and guns are further apart than that. That's why.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-76078588216452712022012-09-12T17:16:38.633+02:002012-09-12T17:16:38.633+02:00Speaking of consistency, MikeyBoy has never once a...Speaking of consistency, MikeyBoy has never once addressed the fact that his co-blogger has had two negligent discharges. One would think that this would be the first person that he would try to convert to the "wisdom" of his one-strike rule. But no, hypocrisy is on parade today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23247413942952903872012-09-11T23:09:08.963+02:002012-09-11T23:09:08.963+02:00I don't really know why you think the car comp...I don't really know why you think the car comparison is week (except that perhaps it doesn't support your desired goals) as it is just about as close a comparison as one could find.<br /><br />True story:<br />20 some years ago, my sister briefly left her daughters in her car parked in my parents driveway while she ran inside to grab something. She shut the car off and left it (a standard) in reverse. I don't remember if she had set the parking brake or not - but if she did, it didn't bite very well.<br /><br />While she was inside, one of her girls climbed into the drivers seat and found her key ring and managed to insert the key and turn the ignition. My sister ran out after the commotion to find her car was in the ditch in the yard on the other side of the street. The girls were very scared but, thank God, otherwise unharmed.<br /><br />This was a negligent act by any definition of the term. The ending could have been very different and very very sad. But, it was no more or less negligent than those who fail to properly secure a firearm in a home with young children. It is a poor decision that could have very bad consequences.<br /><br />So, why would you not want to remove her privileges to own and operate a car? Why do you consider that such a poor comparison? What is so different about it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-48791893535641815492012-09-11T15:53:25.204+02:002012-09-11T15:53:25.204+02:00Your idea? How about your evidence?
When you sup...Your idea? How about your evidence?<br /><br />When you support a lifetime ban on driving for anyone who has an accident, you'll be consistent. Until then, you're just anti-gun.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-83161242671395387492012-09-11T15:52:01.906+02:002012-09-11T15:52:01.906+02:00Avoidable: that which can be avoided
Preventable...Avoidable: that which can be avoided<br /><br />Preventable: that which can be prevented<br /><br />You want more detail? I'll add that in both cases, the element of practicality enters into real-world calculations. For example, given the evidence, I see no reason for believing that drug use is preventable by law enforcement. By the same line of reasoning, I see no way that gun control can work in a country with long and open borders and at least 300,000,000 guns.<br /><br />Your turn.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-58369513224718550612012-09-11T10:27:01.806+02:002012-09-11T10:27:01.806+02:00"So, your plan would be equivalent to removin..."So, your plan would be equivalent to removing driving privileges for people who travel a few miles over the speed limit, but letting those who drive under the influence off scott-free."<br /><br />Weak comparison and weak argument that you keep resorting to it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-21446616593541325652012-09-11T10:21:07.264+02:002012-09-11T10:21:07.264+02:00I pretty much agree with your way of describing it...I pretty much agree with your way of describing it. But, I think you're a bit too soft and tolerant about the negligence. <br /><br />Since we cannot foresee the future we have to hold people accountable for the actions the commit. "Accidents" with a gun are one way of identifying those who are unfit, and it's a good idea to disarm them before they do any more damage.<br /><br />My idea is that the stories we read daily about negligent discharges are about people who are not virgins as far as gun negligence goes. Many of them are using drugs or alcohol and represent a continuing danger to themselves and others. Some of them are just stupid, others just don't care.<br /><br />So, I think a much stricter standard is called for. Also, your idea of meting out punishment according to the damage done, although it makes sense, fails to consider that the same exact act of negligence can kill a kid or put a round in the floor. In both cases, removal of gun rights is appropriate, and perhaps jail time is too much if the incident truly was an accident. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-92071661345424463482012-09-11T09:48:54.329+02:002012-09-11T09:48:54.329+02:00"When are you going to define words like &quo..."When are you going to define words like "acceptable" and "negligible"?"<br /><br />When you define words like "avoidable" and "preventable."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-79038850309376025852012-09-11T04:37:38.951+02:002012-09-11T04:37:38.951+02:00It's good to have some other members of the ed...It's good to have some other members of the educational community around to remind the control freaks that we're not all afraid of guns.Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-34780957907147451262012-09-11T00:23:58.160+02:002012-09-11T00:23:58.160+02:00"Doesn't the idea that it takes violating..."Doesn't the idea that it takes violating 3 of the 4 Rules to have a serious tragedy support my "one strike you're out" idea? That's how I'd take it."<br /><br />No, not any more than the idea of following too close behind another vehicle should remove one's driving privileges.<br /><br />And remember, you could only reliably punish the least offensive of the rule violations.<br /><br />I would MUCH rather have someone break rule 3 by slipping their finger into the trigger guard whether while keeping pointed in a save direction than to be swept by a weapon even if I know it is not loaded - even if it had a chamber flag in it where it could not even possibly be loaded:<br /><br />http://www.natchezss.com/images/products/KBCF9.jpg<br /><br />So, your plan would be equivalent to removing driving privileges for people who travel a few miles over the speed limit, but letting those who drive under the influence off scott-free.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-71548661349392855302012-09-11T00:16:33.970+02:002012-09-11T00:16:33.970+02:00Hi Greg,
I am staff, not faculty - so I do not te...Hi Greg,<br /><br />I am staff, not faculty - so I do not teach. But I do interact frequently with students.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01606648012499886227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-91266414225644926202012-09-10T14:54:50.118+02:002012-09-10T14:54:50.118+02:00MikeB the problem is that your side wants to tell ...MikeB the problem is that your side wants to tell other people what they can or cannot do ... with some arbitrary, undefinable notion of safety or probability as your rationale. And the punishments that you want for accidents go against hundreds of years of common law.<br /><br />Telling someone what they can or cannot do violates their liberty. And arguments about safety or probability are simply justifications for violating someone's liberty.<br /><br />And throwing away hundreds of years of common law is a bad idea. What we should be doing is upholding basic common law and holding people accountable/liable for their ACTIONS. That includes the basic common law aspect of negligence versus malice. If a person harms someone's property through negligence, they are responsible for restitution. If a person harms another person through negligence, they are again responsible for restitution and likely face a sanction (a fine or short prison sentence) as an incentive to act responsibly. Finally, if a person harms another person with malice, they are responsible for restitution, will face sanctions (large fines and/or long prison sentence), and could forfeit rights forever since their actions were an egregious attack on society.<br /><br />A negligent discharge is not malicious or an attack on society ... and denying someone any of their rights forever is not consistent with common law. What is consistent with common law in the event of a negligent discharge of a firearm is restitution. And if the discharge injured a person, sanctions that are on par with the level of injury are in order. A small fine and a couple days in jail might make sense for an extremely minor injury. A more serious injury might involve a more substantial fine and a longer stay in jail. If the discharge caused a death, then a few years in prison for manslaughter is in order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-91375127479376566842012-09-10T12:40:51.211+02:002012-09-10T12:40:51.211+02:00300,000,000 guns
100,000,000 +/- gun owners
Fewer ...300,000,000 guns<br />100,000,000 +/- gun owners<br />Fewer than 700 accidental gun deaths per annum<br /><br />When are you going to define words like "acceptable" and "negligible"?Greg Camphttp://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com