|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 10:36:09 GMT -4
The idea that limiting gun ownership among law-abiding citizens makes it easier for criminals is, in my opinion, a red herring.
A problem with evaluating that argument is that the intent is to deter attack. It's hard to tell when a deterrant is working and whether it continues to be necessary.
The appropriate response to crime is for the state to deal with the causes of crime.
That's a good point. Rather than Those wacky Americans and their guns, a more thought-provoking proposition is Those wacky Americans and their culture of violence.
Allowing citizens to arm themselves in response to crime is like dealing with bad roads by putting up signs warning drivers of the bad roads, instead of repairing the roads.
The original intent was to address bad roads by suggesting that everyone who wanted have a shovel. Now the problem is that people are banging each other upside the head with the shovels, leading us to question whether it's such a good idea after all. No, not the best analogy.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 19, 2007 12:11:15 GMT -4
Our constitution guarantees gun ownership. Or at least it can be reasonably interpreted to mean that. Although the actual extent of the meaning is somewhat vague. In cases of vagueness, I usually fall on the interpretation that reserves rights for the individual not the government. After all that is a key constitutional principle.
I own something like 30 firearms. All inherited as my father had been a cop and my grandfather was a collector. Both were hunters. Many are antique but several are modern and quite functional. The functional ones are locked away and I have ammo for a few. The only one that ever comes out is the one I take when solo backpacking. We have feral pigs in our forests.
To resolve the ambiguity about rights we need to amend the constitution in a way that will both allow and guarantee gun ownership for those who believe that self protection cannot be left to the government, while allowing some restrictions that prevent people like the VT shooter from buying firearms. Without a constitutional amendment many people will reasonably view restrictions a part of a creeping set of laws eventually resulting in total disarmament. It believe that most people could agree on some restrictions if constitutional guarantees were also in place overcome the NRA’s unrestricted access stance.
From a political perspective it is tough to be in the middle of an issue. There is little money to be raised or voters to be energized taking the MOR stance. So practically no politician could move a MOR stance forward. Politically we are stuck in a deadlock. If we are lucky, the generation of students affected by the VT massacre will find a coalition that can overcome our divisions and more a reasonable stance forward.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Apr 19, 2007 12:24:40 GMT -4
That is why I bolded the word legally. But it doesn't even have to be a gun. Someone that is determined to kill a lot of people can do so by other methods. Gun control will not stop random acts of violence such as this. But it can certainly reduce the effect of the violence. Back in 1987, Australia experienced two mass shootings, in which about 6 or 7 people were killed by one man with one or more firearms. Naturally, the stories dominated the media at the time, and there were many calls to tighten gun ownership laws. A year or so later, I remember reading a story about 5 centimetres long in the News in Brief section of the local newspaper. It described how a man had gone on a rampage with a machete in a shopping mall somewhere in Australia, injuring seven people before he could be disarmed. Imagine what sort of carnage he could have inflicted if he'd had a firearm instead of a machete. The point I'm slowly making my way towards is that guns have the ability to kill and wound at ranges of hundreds of metres, which makes them uniquely dangerous among weapons which are moderately easy to obtain. That's one reason why I strongly support their tight control. But imagine what damage that same person could do with a bomb. My point still remains that if one is determined to hurt people they will find a way to do so. Restricting the way guns are legally obtained will not stop that as that person will use a different method or illegally obtain a gun. And I never said anything about law-abiding citizens access to guns. Again, if a non-law abiding citizen wants to hurt people they will find a way. Restricting access to guns just possibly changes the way they will do so. It will not stop the act itself. The person wishing to do harm may still illegally obtain a gun, or use a different method that may do more or less harm.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 13:11:09 GMT -4
After all that is a key constitutional principle.
The overarching principle of American government is that government cannot be trusted, and that ultimate authority in all respects must rest with the people -- not with the res pubblica, but with the rank and file. The rhetorical problem in the advocacy of increased firearms control is that the objections to the alleged historical reasons for guaranteeing gun ownership boil down in most cases to "Trust the government," which still sticks in the craw of most Americans. "Let the police respond to exigent circumstances with armed force. Let the National Guard maintain the domestic peace in time of emergency or in the case of improper attack by federal troops."
The problem is not that these are unreasonable, but that they would represent a fundamental shift in the philosophy of government as practiced in America. If the government ought to be trusted to wield armed force in all cases where necessary, then what else should we trust the government to do without the ability of the citizenry at large to oppose? That's why people are reluctant to take steps that seem urgently needed.
...while allowing some restrictions that prevent people like the VT shooter from buying firearms.
That's an interesting case. I think there is general agreement that people who have a history of mental instability such that they are judged by competent expertise to be a danger to others should not be allowed to own firearms. The problem in the VT shooter's case is that only voluntary reporting of that history is allowed. He deceptively checked "no" in the box where it asked if he'd ever been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. It might be reasonable to require the vendor to verify that by objective means.
But then that means making private health information available for public inquiry, which is another can of worms. If a firearm vendor is allowed to determine independently whether some private citizen has been involuntarily treated for mental disorders, under what rules should other people have a right to know that? Prospective employers? Journalists? Election commissions? None of these debates is ever as easy as the single issue that sparks it. But drawing those lines is precisely what makes public policy difficult.
Without a constitutional amendment many people will reasonably view restrictions a part of a creeping set of laws eventually resulting in total disarmament.
Agreed. Clearly public policy needs to address in some way situations like the Virginia Tech incident. That was clearly outlined from the very beginning in American government. George Washington's inaugural address touched on a tenet of American democracy that has gone largely ignored: the vast freedom that Americans enjoy must be exercised responsibly. If the right to keep and bear arms freely results in irresponsible actions such as mass murder and shooting sprees, the people will rightly rise up and abridge those rights through democratic means in order to ensure an orderly society. When faced with a decision between disorder and abridgement, the public will choose abridgement. Therefore those who wish to enjoy liberty must take pains to do it with order.
But it must occur without doing injury to the more fundamental fabric of government. One should not lightly amend the supreme law of the land, but one should not undermine it piecemeal either.
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 19, 2007 14:50:48 GMT -4
First of all, Jay, if what I heard on NPR on Tuesday is accurate, Cho was committed voluntarily. If that's so, he was not disingenuous when he checked the "committed involuntarily" box.
Second, again based on an NPR report, Cho was never formally found to be a danger to others, only to himself. Of course, that alone could quite plausibly be made grounds for denial of access to deadly weapons. (And, of course, the finding itself is open to criticism -- how could they not have found him dangerous to others?)
It really seems that this guy just barely managed to slip through the safety net. There were several chances for the system to intervene -- his "stalking" incidents were reported to police; one of his professors actually asked for security presence during the classes Cho attended; another prof referred him to counseling based on his violent writings; and his roommates all thought he was a very strange person. Yet somehow, none of these things triggered a significant response.
One wonders how many other Chos are out there right now, skating around the edges of the system... and how many of them would never really do what he did compared to how many actually might.
Minority Report, anyone?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 19, 2007 14:56:23 GMT -4
George Washington's inaugural address touched on a tenet of American democracy that has gone largely ignored: the vast freedom that Americans enjoy must be exercised responsibly. If the right to keep and bear arms freely results in irresponsible actions such as mass murder and shooting sprees, the people will rightly rise up and abridge those rights through democratic means in order to ensure an orderly society. Perhaps what baffles the rest of us the most, is why this has not already happened? Shooting guns is great fun, but after Hungerford and Dunblane, a consensus was fairly rapidly arrived at (over here at least) that it's not that much fun. I don't really get the requirement for citizens to be armed to resist their government either: governments are best resisted by simply removing the essential consent of the governed. Of course, unless you quickly achieve a majority, this will involve consequences, but those can't really be avoided and will likely only be worsened by shooting back at an organisation that will always be better armed. It seems that all an armed citizenry has produced is more highly armed and suspicious government agencies, occasionally described as "trigger happy" by some of those they are supposed to "Protect and Serve".
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 19, 2007 15:26:17 GMT -4
Perhaps what baffles the rest of us the most, is why this has not already happened? Shooting guns is great fun, but after Hungerford and Dunblane, a consensus was fairly rapidly arrived at (over here at least) that it's not that much fun. The central issue is not that shooting is fun. If it were just an issue of recration vs. risk it may have been decided very differently. Guns are valuable tools for self-defense, both against animals as well as humans, and for obtaining food. I ate a lot of deer stakes and deer jerky while growing up. And the nation was founded when a citizen army using largely it's own privately owned weapons overthrew an unpopular colonialist government.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 19, 2007 15:38:51 GMT -4
I don't really get the requirement for citizens to be armed to resist their government
Another idea that is more mainstream, though has less vocal proponents, is that the individual should take responsibility to be his own first responder for his own safety. That is, it is primarily my job to protect myself and family with secondary responsibility to the police. I agree with that and choose to implement it in my household by living in what I consider to be a safe neighborhood and taking basic security measures. Also by keeping my guns locked up where no one can get accidentally hurt. Others have different views on safety requirements, prefer to live in rural areas with limited law enforcement or can't afford the kind of neighborhood I live in. I believe they have a right to responsibly secure their own safety with fairly broad discretion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 16:07:55 GMT -4
...Cho was committed voluntarily. ...Cho was never formally found to be a danger to others, only to himself.
I heard reports to the contrary, but I went just now to CNN's web site and confirmed your account of the facts with them. So to stay honest I'll have to leave Cho himself alone for the time being.
It still bothers me that the word of the applicant is the only verification of involuntary treatment for mental instability. Unfortunately under HIPAA (recent reform in American health-care privacy) that's probably all that can be done.
Yet somehow, none of these things triggered a significant response.
And there may be several reasons for that, both practical and ideological. Remember that we have the benefit of hindsight. We can now go to NPR or to CNN or any number of major news outlets and see a combined dossier on all that has been discovered about Cho. That doesn't mean such a dossier existed prior to the shooting. Different people may have had bits and pieces of the picture, none of them necessarily significant enough to warrant action beyond that which was taken. It's only when all those pieces come together to form the horrific picture that we see where a more concerted and aggressive intervention was probably indicated.
And again we return to the American philosophy of affording maximum freedom. When we infringe upon someone's individual rights, we do so only with the clearest justification. While we accept that this philosophy errs on the side of allowing potentially destructive activity, it's very difficult to remember that when we're faced with the specific, real, and proximal effects of that allowance. It's difficult to escape the suspicion that "the system" failed in some way.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 16:21:24 GMT -4
I don't really get the requirement for citizens to be armed to resist their government either: governments are best resisted by simply removing the essential consent of the governed.
The keeping and bearing of arms was not intended to facilitate casual resistance against the government. It was intended to resist gross misuse of military might as a tool of oppression. That is, the government would be less likely to send its standing army against a state or city if it believed the citizens could offer meaningful armed resistance. This of course harks back to the time of the Revolution when British military officers attempted to disarm the colonists once a significant degree of discord had arisen. The primitive United States wanted to make sure such a condition would never arise again.
Jason, help me out with Utah history: didn't the federal government actually sent troops against Salt Lake City in the mid-1800s to seize and occupy the city after having declared the inhabitants in rebellion? I don't know if that's an apt example because Utah at the time was not part of the United States, but that strikes me as exactly the sort of thing the Founding Fathers envisioned when they stipulated an armed citizenry. The Nauvoo Legion might also be considered a case study of the role of citizen militias in the protection of civil rights, but I don't know enough about what it actually did to say so.
And of course these are all historical examples. The question is whether we need such things in modern times. I'm inclined to think we do, even if we don't realize that we do. The problems that caused the American Revolution are primarily failures of human nature, and human nature has an uncanny habit of staying roughly the same century after century.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 19, 2007 16:31:43 GMT -4
Perhaps what baffles the rest of us the most, is why this has not already happened? Shooting guns is great fun, but after Hungerford and Dunblane, a consensus was fairly rapidly arrived at (over here at least) that it's not that much fun. The central issue is not that shooting is fun. If it were just an issue of recration vs. risk it may have been decided very differently. Guns are valuable tools for self-defense, both against animals as well as humans, and for obtaining food. I ate a lot of deer stakes and deer jerky while growing up. And the nation was founded when a citizen army using largely it's own privately owned weapons overthrew an unpopular colonialist government. It's been 230 years: get over it already When you have a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail: conflict with other humans is a lot less lethal when there are less guns around. The best defence against predatory animals is being somewhere else, and there's a lot to be said for agriculture. There are solutions to the problem of feeding the economically unfortunate that don't involve side-effects of madmen armed to the teeth...
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 19, 2007 16:56:15 GMT -4
And of course these are all historical examples. The question is whether we need such things in modern times. I'm inclined to think we do, even if we don't realize that we do. The problems that caused the American Revolution are primarily failures of human nature, and human nature has an uncanny habit of staying roughly the same century after century. Perhaps another historical example might be Kent State. The arming of the citizenry didn't prevent abuse of military power, yet Johnson's Presidency was effectively doomed as a result.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 19, 2007 17:01:00 GMT -4
Jason, help me out with Utah history: didn't the federal government actually sent troops against Salt Lake City in the mid-1800s to seize and occupy the city after having declared the inhabitants in rebellion? It most certainly did. In 1857 James Buchanan, who had just been elected President, decided to replace Brigham Young, who was then governor of the Utah Territory, with his own appointment, and he sent an army of roughly 7,000 troops, known as Johnston's Army because of its commander, along to enforce the appointment. No actual battles were fought, but the Nauvoo Legion (essentially the Territory's militia) did burn some of the supply trains for Johnston's army in guerilla-style actions to slow their advance. Much of the population of Salt Lake (about 30,000) moved out of the city to more southerly regions of the state, with the rest prepared to enact a "scortched earth" policy if necessary. The foundations of the Salt Lake City Temple, which was under construction in the center of the city, were covered with dirt and disguised as a farm field. When the Mormons offered mostly passive resistance public opinion turned against the President as having acted too quickly without adequate evidence of rebellion, and the press began to call it Buchanan's Blunder. A peace agreement was worked out between the government and church leaders, and President Buchanan issued a global pardon to Mormon actions during the "Utah War". Mr. Cummings was accepted as territorial governor (though he often complained that Brigham Young remained the real authority in the territory). The troops moved out of the city itself, but Utah was effectively occupied by fedral troops until the Civil War, when they were needed back east. Utah was a part of the United States at the time, but it was a Territory rather than a State.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Apr 19, 2007 17:06:09 GMT -4
The Nauvoo Legion might also be considered a case study of the role of citizen militias in the protection of civil rights, but I don't know enough about what it actually did to say so. It would appear that they shot a lot of Indians and some transients from Arkansas apart from their more legitimate activities as the official and quasi-official State Militia. Probably a very interesting case study as you say, but what position the evidence supports may remain ambiguous at best.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 17:09:17 GMT -4
Restricting the way guns are legally obtained will not stop that as that person will use a different method or illegally obtain a gun.
There is more than practical safety at stake here. Another overarching element of American democratic philosophy is the notion that the government must justify its infringement of rights, not the people their claim on those rights. The onus is on the government to show the necessity of restricting a right and to restrict it in the least infringing way possible. When the discussion is converted to ask why should anyone need a gun, the subtext then asks why anyone would need free speech or the right to assemble or to exercise any other fundamental right.
Now granted some might not consider those examples of a single class of rights. But part of the original debate was the notion of self-defense. The right to defend oneself was considered a fundamental civil right recognized under English common law. And that same belief persists today. The right to keep arms was considered by some to be essentially synonymous with the right to self-defense. Not by all, but that aspect of the debate was quite salient at the time. Hence the right under the U.S. Constitution to keep a gun is still often considered equivalent to or connected with the right to defend one's person, family, and property.
|
|