|
Post by donnieb on Apr 19, 2007 17:18:18 GMT -4
Yet somehow, none of these things triggered a significant response.And there may be several reasons for that, both practical and ideological. Certainly, which is why I raised the question of how many Chos may be skirting along the edge of the system right now. I'll bet there are a whole lot of worried (panicky?) social workers, police, security folks, and counselors looking over their records right now, wondering if any of their cases could be the next "one we almost prevented".
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 19, 2007 17:50:07 GMT -4
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. Former members of the Nauvoo Legion were involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, yes. The ring leader was excommunicated from the LDS Church and executed for his role. For much of the LDS church's early history it was hated and strongly persecuted by mob violence while the State or Fedral Governments ignored their pleas for help. In such a setting having your own legally-armed group to serve as a deterrant probably saved hundreds of lives.
|
|
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 18:02:47 GMT -4
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. It may be fairly argued that an unreasonably large number of people are having their "self-evident ... inalienable" right to life (and thereby liberty and the pursuit of happiness) rather permanently infringed, and that this may justify restricting some other rights: much as it is commonly accepted that freedom of speech may be limited by circumstance, as in the classic example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Self-defence is still accepted in English law, although it has always been tied to the principle of "reasonable force" - in practical terms, what you think you can persuade a jury of your peers to let you get away with. In general, proportionality applies: lethal force is acceptable in the face of a lethal threat, otherwise not.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 19, 2007 18:23:22 GMT -4
Jay makes enough typos that they can't count or everyone would have a "I Correted JayUtah's Spelling" one. The worst are similar to mine and forgetting to put in that all important "not" or "n't" which sort of changes that entire sentance from what you were wanting....
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 18:39:13 GMT -4
It may be fairly argued that an unreasonably large number of people are having their ... right to life ... infringed, and that this may justify restricting some other rights...
That is likely what Washington meant. The right to bear arms does not equate to the right to threaten, harrass, and intimidate others generally, nor to enter their places of worship, business, or education, and fire upon them indiscriminately. Thus if the right to bear arms cannot be exercised without injuring the order of society, society will opt for order over liberty. Benjamin Franklin had something to say about that, but I'll not confuse the issue just yet.
But the need to restrict the right to own and carry a gun generally need not be connected with the need to curb gun violence except as far as Americans cannot separate them. We must first seek a solution that separates the issues and restricts only that which is necessary to preserve order.
...that freedom of speech may be limited by circumstance, as in the classic example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
Agreed, and that is an excellent example of the limits placed on how government may restrict speech. One may shout "Fire!" in an empty theater without injury. And one may shout "Albatross!" in a crowded one. Very specifically limiting what is considered unacceptable is how government generally proceeds. Therefore to restrict the possession of firearms government must proceed very narrowly. Eliminating private ownership of firearms -- effectively disarming the citizenry -- is the broadest possible infringement of the right. Denying certain types of firearms to all, or denying all firearms to certain types, are how circumstantial limits ought first to apply. When those demonstrate to have been unacceptably narrow, then they may be broadened under the Least Restrictive Means doctrine, because they will have been shown to be ineffective.
In general, proportionality applies: lethal force is acceptable in the face of a lethal threat, otherwise not.
I find that most reasonable. The question then devolves to the asymmetry argument. Disarming the population will disarm only those who own firearms legally. Then the problem becomes someone who has previously determined to disobey the law and who has thus obtained his firearm illegally. If he assaults me with that weapon, I have no ability to respond with proportional force. I may have the world's sharpest machete, but he has a stand-off weapon that renders my defense ineffective.
Making firearms illegal is not presumed to level the playing field for all involved. The interesting question is whether it would nevertheless result in overall greater safety. It's a Great Debate because the simple number of firearm-related casualties might predictably decrease, but it might change who that number represents.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 19, 2007 18:39:27 GMT -4
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.
This is an argument I always find silly. It is a lot harder to build a bomb or get an illegal gun than it is to walk in off the street, put down $50 and walk out with a gun.
Personally I have never had a problem with legitimate, sane, people who can be trusted with them having a gun. Over here anyone over 18 can apply for a licence, and once they have been checked out and passed a test to make sure they understand the responsibilities of gun ownership, they can buy as many as they like, so the system here is controlled, but still allows people the right to own a gun. It seems to me that in the US they want all the rights, but aren't prepared for take the responsibilities that come with those rights. Here we make sure that the person applying for a gun is responsible before they can exercise their right.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 19, 2007 22:13:30 GMT -4
I thought the previous ruling was that spelling and grammar don't count for a T-shirt. I know they don't for me. Too easy, I guess. Does the correction of your Shakespeare on the other board count, do you think?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 10:50:41 GMT -4
Does the correction of your Shakespeare on the other board count, do you think?
You mean the petard comment? I don't know; I don't profess to be a Shakespeare expert, nor frankly did I realize that was a quote most closely associated with Shakespeare, so perhaps that doesn't count. I don't make the T-shirt rules, and I don't think I should. It's more impartial that way.
|
|
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 20, 2007 14:53:38 GMT -4
In general, proportionality applies: lethal force is acceptable in the face of a lethal threat, otherwise not.I find that most reasonable. The question then devolves to the asymmetry argument. Disarming the population will disarm only those who own firearms legally. Then the problem becomes someone who has previously determined to disobey the law and who has thus obtained his firearm illegally. If he assaults me with that weapon, I have no ability to respond with proportional force. I may have the world's sharpest machete, but he has a stand-off weapon that renders my defense ineffective. Making firearms illegal is not presumed to level the playing field for all involved. The interesting question is whether it would nevertheless result in overall greater safety. It's a Great Debate because the simple number of firearm-related casualties might predictably decrease, but it might change who that number represents. Which of course raises the question of whether responding to force with force is always the most appropriate choice. Use of a stand-off weapon gives the target an opportunity to increase the range or interpose something solid. Running and hiding may not sound so heroic, but perhaps there is a quieter heroism in forgoing ones personal response in favour of increasing the probability that more of ones compatriots will not become tragic gun statistics. Hopefully, Police forces see disarming the illegally armed as part of their job description, and a generally unarmed populace is an assistance in this: all weapons are legal at the point of manufacture, they become illegal when stolen, easier when there are a lot of them in easily accessible places, like homes, or the glove compartments of cars. So I don't think asymmetry will be quite as bleak a situation as it is sometimes painted. As I've said earlier, there is evidence that with less guns around there will be more crime committed, as possession of a firearm is no longer a sine qua non for those acting illegally, but the idea that less guns equates to less people shot has logical and empirical support.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 17:04:18 GMT -4
Which of course raises the question of whether responding to force with force is always the most appropriate choice.
No, it doesn't. Allowing someone to have a weapon does not mandate that he use it in every situation, or even in any situation. But not allowing someone to have a weapon doesn't let him use it even when the situation would be appropriate. One legal option provides a choice and holds the attacked gun owner responsible for his choice; the other doesn't provide a choice. This is why American philosophy opts toward general allowances punctuated by narrow restrictions, rather than general restriction and allowance only where warranted.
Use of a stand-off weapon gives the target an opportunity to increase the range...
Not an effective defense.
...or interpose something solid.
Depends on circumstances.
Unless you're prepared to legislate for all possible modes of attack and defense, better to allow people at the time and place to choose.
...perhaps there is a quieter heroism in forgoing ones personal response
Self-defense and heroism are not the same thing.
...more of ones compatriots will not become tragic gun statistics.
Presumes that there are compatriots present, that they are not also targets of the attacker, and that you don't mind yourself becoming a passive gun statistic.
And why are gun statistics more tragic than some other kind of fatality statistic? When I hear rhetoric like that, I think it has more to do with hatred of firearms per se.
...all weapons are legal at the point of manufacture, they become illegal when stolen, easier when there are a lot of them in easily accessible places...
Theft is not the only source of illegally obtained weapons, or even necessarily a significant one. There is, for example, the black market.
Nevertheless I would favor legislation requiring gun owners to demonstrate safe storage of firearms that makes it more difficult for them to be stolen or accessed by persons not license or trained to operate them. I believe you've heard from gun owners here on that point. I myself, when I owned a very nice rifle, removed the bolt from the weapon and locked the bolt and weapon separately in sturdy cabinets two which only I had the keys. The gun owners I associate with are careful and conscientious. It would be unfair to lump them together with some gang-banger driving around with a .357 on his dashboard.
the idea that less guns equates to less people shot has logical and empirical support.
But I don't view the question as so one-dimensional. I still see the central problem as the American culture of violence, not necessarily the weapons by which that culture inflicts its vices.
Compare the Trolley Square shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting. Because the Trolley Square attacker was immediately engaged by a well-armed defender, he was quickly forced into a defensive posture that allowed bystanders to escape, resulting only in the casualties he managed to inflict in the first minute of his spree. Yes, the defender in that case was in fact a police officer, but he was not there in his capacity as a policemen; he was, for all purposes, an incidental armed man.
Obviously those scenarios are not the only ones in which gun violence applies. Clearly problems such as gang violence, domestic arguments, and accidental shootings need to be very seriously and aggressively addressed in our public policy.
|
|
spasmo
Mercury
BANNED
Posts: 8
|
Post by spasmo on Apr 20, 2007 18:04:44 GMT -4
I noticed that a man is holed up at Johnson Space Center with a gun . Do you think it might be Phil Plait no longer able to live with himself ? www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18233965/
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 18:08:47 GMT -4
I noticed that a gunman is holed up at Johnson Space Center with a gun.
Logical. If he were holed up with a granola bar he'd be a granolabarman, not a gunman.
Do you think it might be Phil Plait no longer able to live with himself ?
So who are you a socket puppet of and when did you get banned from BAUT?
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Apr 20, 2007 18:43:06 GMT -4
..... all weapons are legal at the point of manufacture,..... You might think I am being too picky, but not all weapons are legal at the point of manufacture. If I make a short barreled shotgun, machinegun, or grenade without first paying the $200 tax to the ATF, then my weapon is not legal. One does not have to be a skilled metal worker to make lethal weapons capable to kiling at a distance, but it does help. Ranb
|
|
spasmo
Mercury
BANNED
Posts: 8
|
Post by spasmo on Apr 20, 2007 19:01:26 GMT -4
I noticed that a gunman is holed up at Johnson Space Center with a gun.Logical. If he were holed up with a granola bar he'd be a granolabarman, not a gunman. Do you think it might be Phil Plait no longer able to live with himself ?So who are you a socket puppet of and when did you get banned from BAUT? I noticed the little tautology before you did, and changed it. What's a granola bar then Jay ? Have you seen Phil on Youtube ? I think I'll download one of his videos in case he blows himself away. www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheBadAstronomerDo you know if he fits the profile we have come to expect ? He looks from his face and communication skills that he might have been a loner from an early age..
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 19:10:59 GMT -4
Again I ask: who are you a sock puppet of, and when did you get banned at BAUT?
|
|