RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Wed May 23, 2018 8:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:52 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011
I have to back up jdogg here. Of course, what he says makes sense. I work with several CCW holders. None of them are right-wing. All of them practice gun safety. I strongly believe in the right to own a gun, but I also believe in reasonable regulations of weapons, and the need to license them, so we can track them when they get into the wrong hands.

If one becomes a CCW holder, it says - to some degree, anyway - that they are wanting to comply with the laws of this nation. The people that don't have CCW but have guns anyway are the ones that have no interest in obeying the law.

S'toon, I looked at your first two links, neither stated the gun owners were CCW holders. So, what exactly is your argument?

Now, to push back a bit on Justin, just a bit - George Zimmerman was a CCW holder. So, just being a CCW holder doesn't mean you've got it for all the right reasons, now, does it? My problem with a CCW permit is that I feel many people who get them do so because they want the opportunity to take the law into their own hands.

But you point is well-taken that that minority is far outnumbered by criminals who have guns that don't give a shit about the law. We should probably concentrate on those folks first.

I already acknowledged that some of the mass shooters were CCW holders Gou. There is never a guarantee as to the reasons anyone does anything.

It is the repeated assertions that gun owners are unstable, violent and devoid of concern for their fellow Americans that I was responding to.

I don't believe that CCW lowers crime rates. I think laws like MO's promote the use of violence and will result in numerous shootings that ought to be criminalized being protected. However, I also believe in individual rights, and if you are the long-time resident of a neighborhood you've seen erode, you should have a means of protecting yourself in your individual capacity without breaking the law.

The reason that I don't carry is I'm not going to shoot somebody. If you rob me, I'm going to comply, not see if I can out-draw you. It's hard for me to envision a scenario where I would choose to use a gun, so I don't carry one, even when I'm in a home full of Latin Kings telling a client his chances of beating an Attempt-homicide charge aren't good, and everyone in the house is packing. While it is a dangerous situation, I can't see how my being armed helps me. My buddy who does similar work is a separated Marine. He keeps a gun in his brief case, because his clients have threatened him, and he feels like he can defend himself with it.

Different strokes for different folks. Neither is born out of a desire to commit violence. My investigators think I'm f-cking nuts BTW, going to places I go without backup or my own protection.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 9:54 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011

Again, how does this show that CCW permit holders are not among the most law abiding citizens in the country?

How does this show that CCW permit holders are inherently violent, in a manner that justifies the claims already stated?

Oh wait. It doesn't. It's called an anecdote.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:05 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35055

Motor City, 232 violent crime charges out of 440,006 CPL holders? Here's the Michigan statewide numbers for 2014. 146,850 violent crimes.

You just made jdogg's point.

_________________
aragorn 4/20/17:

Admittedly, I did not come up with the phrase, but I'm nearly positive that I got it from one of my white nationalist buddies. It just fits so well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:10 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35055
I already acknowledged that some of the mass shooters were CCW holders Gou. There is never a guarantee as to the reasons anyone does anything.

It is the repeated assertions that gun owners are unstable, violent and devoid of concern for their fellow Americans that I was responding to.

I don't believe that CCW lowers crime rates. I think laws like MO's promote the use of violence and will result in numerous shootings that ought to be criminalized being protected. However, I also believe in individual rights, and if you are the long-time resident of a neighborhood you've seen erode, you should have a means of protecting yourself in your individual capacity without breaking the law.

The reason that I don't carry is I'm not going to shoot somebody. If you rob me, I'm going to comply, not see if I can out-draw you. It's hard for me to envision a scenario where I would choose to use a gun, so I don't carry one, even when I'm in a home full of Latin Kings telling a client his chances of beating an Attempt-homicide charge aren't good, and everyone in the house is packing. While it is a dangerous situation, I can't see how my being armed helps me. My buddy who does similar work is a separated Marine. He keeps a gun in his brief case, because his clients have threatened him, and he feels like he can defend himself with it.

Different strokes for different folks. Neither is born out of a desire to commit violence. My investigators think I'm f-cking nuts BTW, going to places I go without backup or my own protection.

I agree. Although I believe in gun rights, I don't own a gun. My wife did, but has since sold it. We no longer have a gun in the house.

It IS pretty silly. If you practice gun safety, you will have it in a safe unloaded, like we did. Pretty hard to get to if you're under attack. And, if you don't practice gun safety, then that gun is far more likely to kill a member of your family than a criminal.

As I travel for a living, I'm just careful where I go and what I do.

_________________
aragorn 4/20/17:

Admittedly, I did not come up with the phrase, but I'm nearly positive that I got it from one of my white nationalist buddies. It just fits so well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:52 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:46 pm
Posts: 1474
As a Canadian, I don't believe in "the right to bear arms." To almost anybody outside the US it doesn't make any sense. Inside the US the people who "believe in the right to bear arms" don't understand what the Second Amendment says, and what it gives right for. As for being "the radical left who hates guns" I must mention to those who don't already know, I served 11 years in the Canadian Army, 5 years of that in the infantry. I know how to use everything from a 9mm pistol through a .50cal machine gun.

The arguments for CCW fall apart once you learn about the fraud the arguments for it were based on.


The GOP’s favorite gun “academic” is a fraud

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies

NRA’s favorite ‘academic’ John Lott exposed as a data-fudging, sock-puppeting fraud

The NRA’s Fraud: Fabrication of Second Amendment Rights

_________________
Socialism! That's that word that your politicians use that it's so nasty. Socialism. Other places just call it sharing. It's a good thing! You just share and give some to the less fortunate. -Fred Eaglesmith


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:16 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3067
Why Was It So Easy for Me to Get a Concealed Handgun License?

Quote:
........White represents a more moderate pro-gun crowd, one that wants to preserve what they see is a necessary and constitutionally protected right to buy and carry a gun, but does not view that right as a substitute for responsibility. Instructors like White have been put in a difficult position as Texas continues to remove barriers from legally buying and carrying a gun, effectively encouraging people to use their legal guns in a growing number of complex situations like suspected home invasions or possible mass shootings. In doing so, the state (as White might say, "in its infinite wisdom") has also made it easier for us to own, carry, and use a gun in public without actually having any idea how do so safely.

We at the Houston Press wanted to put the state's test to the test, so my editors thought it would be a good idea to put me, a native New Yorker who has never held a gun before, through the process of getting a concealed handgun license. If I somehow managed to pass the training course, would I feel like I could confidently handle a weapon in public, as the state allows?

If I had taken the class a few years ago, then perhaps the answer to that question would have more likely been "yes." But in 2013, Texas passed a law reducing the mandatory minimum length of the training course from 10 hours to just four. White told me that was a mistake. He said he has trouble fitting in everything that a gun owner needs to know in the current course, and that a student will not learn how to use a gun solely by following the state's requirements. White recommends people seeking a concealed handgun license spend at least a few hours training with their gun before taking the course, and said they should continue to train afterward.

Not all instructors share White’s sentiments that the training course should be longer. In 2013, one of the state's concealed handgun license instructors told the Dallas Morning-News that he used to fill time in the old 10-hour course with “lighter material,” including "videos of a bruiser chimpanzee that springs from car trunks at the touch of a button to thump people." The level of instruction clearly varies across the state.

"Just because you have a license doesn't mean you know what you're doing," White told me a few weeks before I took the training course, when I sat down with him at Liberty Gun Range in Bellaire, where he also works as an instructor. White said he has been a........



couple of interesting articles

Quote:
......White handed me a brochure for Tac-P Solutions which had a quotation on the front page of Edmund Burke, a classic political theorist credited by some scholars and biographers as the "founder of modern conservatism." According to White's brochure, Burke said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

It's easy to connect that quote to the "good guy with a gun" theory driving the pro-gun crowd's open carry and campus carry arguments: if someone with a gun plans on using it to kill innocent people, then those innocent people are better off defending themselves with a gun than being left without one. But that logic is statistically unfounded — guns are hardly ever used to kill criminals in self-defense.......


Guns in America: For every criminal killed in self-defense, 34 innocent people die

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbHi_jDF-I


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:35 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011

I think states can and should impose licensing and training requirements on CCW permit holders.

Again, it is a misconception that the hunting rifle in the closet is at all on par with the gun in the hands of the felon. This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. Banning CCW permit holders from obtaining a CCW as a reaction to gross crime statistics ignores the clear discrepancies between those who can pass a background check, and those who cannot.

We all know the anecdotes of recklessly used guns, and negligently stored guns. I'm on record as supporting plain tort liability for those whose negligence care of their guns results in physical harm or property damage. If you leave your keys in a car, and some thief takes it for a joy ride and kills someone, you are liable (potentially criminally). There should be express laws in place for the same liability standards for firearms.

We still need to recognize that there are 100,000,000 unregistered guns that possess a current and ongoing threat to the safety of individuals who should reasonably be permitted to make a decision to arm themselves.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:50 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011
You will find similar numbers around the country. This is Milwaukee from the most recent year available.
Quote:
Of the 2011 homicide victims, 76% (65) had a prior arrest and/or citation and of known 2011 homicide suspects
90% (74) had prior arrests/citations. Similar trends are found for nonfatal shooting victims and suspects.
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/ ... portv6.pdf


Philadelphia
Quote:
"[T]he tragedy of it all is that murder, in this city at least, is not exactly a mystery... A look at the homicides committed between 1996 and 1999 reveals a pattern...

"Our examination of the criminal and court histories of 100 randomly selected murder victims and 100 randomly selected alleged murderers showed that many have criminal backgrounds.

"Among alleged murderers, almost 9 out of 10 (86%) had criminal records. Close to half had been charged with either violent offenses and/or weapons offenses, and 57 percent had been charged with drug offenses.
http://web.archive.org/web/200301010556 ... r_T06.html

Meanwhile, as I've said before, relying on homicides and shootings greatly underestimates the costs of felons with guns, because guns are used for robberies and sexual assaults too.

We know who commits gun crimes. There is a clear route forward. GUN OWNERS TEND TO SUPPORT THE SAME GOALS AND THE SAME POLICIES.

The Left is its own worst enemy. There is 90% support for universal background checks nationwide. There is 70% support or better among the NRA. So what does the Left want? An assault weapons ban. They want to call regular gun owners the problem, when though they support the most important policy, BY FAR, effecting NINETY PERCENT of homicides (and robberies, etc).

I don't get it. The Left can't operate with nuance on this issue, which is what invites statements like I originally reacted to.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:36 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3067
J_dogg82 wrote:
You will find similar numbers around the country. This is Milwaukee from the most recent year available.


Philadelphia

Meanwhile, as I've said before, relying on homicides and shootings greatly underestimates the costs of felons with guns, because guns are used for robberies and sexual assaults too.

We know who commits gun crimes. There is a clear route forward. GUN OWNERS TEND TO SUPPORT THE SAME GOALS AND THE SAME POLICIES.

The Left is its own worst enemy. There is 90% support for universal background checks nationwide. There is 70% support or better among the NRA. So what does the Left want? An assault weapons ban. They want to call regular gun owners the problem, when though they support the most important policy, BY FAR, effecting NINETY PERCENT of homicides (and robberies, etc).

I don't get it. The Left can't operate with nuance on this issue, which is what invites statements like I originally reacted to.


did you happen to hear about this onehttp://radiofreeliberal.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17129#p318882 from the other day?

Quote:
.....His 80-year-old father said DeSai owned guns to protect himself against his own clients.....

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbHi_jDF-I


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011

did you happen to hear about this onehttp://radiofreeliberal.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17129#p318882 from the other day?


No. I didn't hear about that one.

You may have the least direct, most passive argument style I've ever seen. Do you want to enlighten me as to why it is particularly relevant to the post you were responding to? Or am I supposed to guess?

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:37 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3067
No. I didn't hear about that one.

You may have the least direct, most passive argument style I've ever seen. Do you want to enlighten me as to why it is particularly relevant to the post you were responding to? Or am I supposed to guess?


the article was about one of the gun owners your talking about committing one of the felonies your talking about. on this block on this day the crime and fear came 100% from a person who carried guns to protect themselves.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbHi_jDF-I


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:07 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 4082
The average dipshit is easily manipulated by fear. That's all that is needed, a false perception of fear. Republikkkans work that irrational emotion in their favor. Fear epidemics, fear everyone except the hetero non-white male, fear that someone will get something that you didn't get. If it wasn't such a pathetic state, it would be funny.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:21 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011

the article was about one of the gun owners your talking about committing one of the felonies your talking about. on this block on this day the crime and fear came 100% from a person who carried guns to protect themselves.

OK?

You know that when someone says "90 percent" of violent crimes are committed by felons, that statement acknowledges that the other 10 percent are committed by people who have no felony record, right?

I don't think anyone reading my posts could infer that I believed law-abiding gun owners never commit crime.

I simply debunked the claim that CCW permit holders are particularly prone to violence, or are immature toddlers who don't want their toys taken away. I would guess the reason you are circumspect in your passive post is that you know I didn't suggest what you appear to be arguing against.

Take a position. Do you support an outright ban on law-abiding criminal defense attorneys owning any guns? Are you ready for mass incarceration of otherwise law-abiding citizens who refused to give up their pistols? Trump has to explain how he'll deport 11 million people. Rather than sniping, if folks really want to ban all guns, they should say so. They should acknowledge that it takes more than passing a law to accomplish it. They need to acknowledge that until nobody has guns, there are 100,000,000 unregistered guns on the streets. They need to justify how they can keep law-abiding citizens utterly unarmed, lambs to a slaughter, while we gather all the guns and make paper-clips.

Basically, folks need to do more than be "against" guns. They need to be for a comprehensive policy. They need to do more than politicize the rare, mass-shootings with bushmasters, and focus on what policy actually responds most effectively and efficiently to the epidemic of gun violence.

Also, if the Left want to get anything done, they should also stop trying to put ridiculous labels on law-abiding gun owners. Everyone in my family has hunting rifles in his/her home because somebody in the family hunts. My sisters are "gun owners" even if they never use the guns themselves. It does absolutely no good for the Left to tell these people they are emotionally stunted malcontents bent on violence (obviously, a distilled version of insults lobbed). It doesn't do any good because 1) it's not accurate, and 2) it doesn't even sound accurate to observers, so it is more likely to convince neutral people to oppose common-sense laws than to help convince anyone the Left is right.

With 90% political support on their side, the Democrats should own the gun issue. The problem is that many really do want to take all the guns (but they also don't want to admit it, or say how, or agree they will do what is "necessary" to effectuate the policy, or agree to take responsibility when a person who surrendered her gun gets raped in her home, etc.) and that unstated intention gives the gun-nuts fertile ground to obstruct any reasonable law. "Gun registration is just gun confiscation." That's a logic fallacy. There is no such thing as a slippery slope. You can't argue against one policy by imagining a different policy that is "bound" to follow. However, I think it's pretty clear that if Ike were in control, and he knew who had guns and where, he'd go get them. There is too much tacit support for unstated gun policy.

If you want to ban guns, then say so. Then say how. If the 10% of gun crimes committed by law-abiding gun owners are still too much for you to bear, fine. But then recognize how imperfect your alternatives are.

We have a member on this board who I have spent years pointing out has never taken a position for anything. He only comes by to complain about whatever is being done, particularly in the foreign policy realm. He complained when it was Bush. He complains when it's Obama. Every time there is a tragedy, it's "proof" in his mind that he was "right" about whatever intervention or lack of intervention he is railing against.

Except you can't be right when you never take a prospective position. You also can't pretend that every tragedy is preventable, or that the cost of preventing one tragedy isn't frequently much greater than the cost of the tragedy itself.

As a lawyer, balancing tests come naturally to me at this point. We balance everything in law. There is no fundamental right not subject to reasonable limitations. Even when we say the law is ALWAYS X, and even if the law is pretty much ALWAYS X, the law pretty much always permits for Y under certain circumstances.

Sometimes a balance has taken over the original rule. For instance, a contract has always been offer+ acceptance+ consideration. If you don't have all of those, you don't have a contract you can sue on. That's the rule. Except if you make promises to an individual in which you reasonably expect the person to rely, and the person does rely, to his or her detriment, and failure to award damages would manifest an "injustice," then he or she can still sue for promissory estoppel, even though you had no contract with him or her. Also, if you never met me, and I paved your driveway on accident, because my negligence had me at the wrong house, I can still sue you for the increase in your property value from my mistake (called "unjust enrichment" - you got rich off my accident so you owe me something). So we started with a rule that says you need a contract, and then we "balanced" all these other things, and at this point the rule saying you "can't sue unless" really doesn't matter anymore does it?

Other times we claim there is a balance but there isn't. Prior instances of sexual assault on the part of a defendant are inadmissible when offered to show "behavior in conformity therewith." That's character evidence, and you can't convict someone of a crime based upon character. A person who committed an act in the past is not actually more likely to have committed a different act in the future just because of the prior conduct. We don't let people get convicted over and over again for the same bad act, by letting it come up as evidence in every other case. That's the rule. Yet, you can bet that evidence gets in 99 times out of 100. It gets in because it's offered for an "acceptable purpose" other than character, such as "motive" or "lack of mistake," etc. Everyone knows it's coming in to say "this guy molests children, so clearly this victim is telling the truth" but we pretend we are doing something else with a "balance" of "risks of unfair prejudice". Similarly, there is allegedly a motion to dismiss I can file for violation of the equal protection clause if I can show the government is applying the law unequally based upon race (14th Amendment). I was shocked to learn this, and wondered why I'd never heard of a motion to dismiss on 14th Amendment grounds. Not in law school or practice. Then I read an article from the national bar association last week saying they could not find a SINGLE CASE IN HISTORY where the motion was granted anywhere in the country. There is an ALLEGED balancing of equal protection against the need to punish crime, but apparently nobody in the whole country has ever done it.

What does this have to do with guns? Not much, I guess, except...

I am perfectly capable and willing to acknowledging there is a balancing act to do here. Guns are dangerous. Guns are also used for protection. We DO send "good" people with guns after "bad" people with guns. Pandora's box is beyond open. We can get any gun we want without a background check in minutes in most cities. We have to balance the burden we place on people's right to protect themselves from valid threats those guns already pose (and less-armed/unarmed criminals too) with the risk that gun possession causes the community at large.

Unless we are actually going to disarm the citizenry, we have to balance who should have easiest access to guns. That means we need an accurate and reasonable analysis of what groups of gun owners we actually have.

We need to balance our liberal values. Most liberals I know are against mass incarceration, particularly for non-violent offenders of "victimless" crimes. How many prisons is the Left ready to fill with folks whose only offense is keeping grandpa's shotgun, rather than turning it in on demand? I don't know. They don't generally take that much ownership of the issue.

You and others can come out in different places in this balance. I have no problem with disagreement. It took me a while to distill my own views. I am TIRED of the Left being completely irrational in this discussion though, and then always pointing the finger at the "other side" as "crazy" and recalcitrant. "To resolve conflict with others, one must first resolve conflict with oneself." (Fortune cookie.) (OK I made it up but it sounds like something Confucius might say).

At what point do our own failed methods, and our own refusal to adapt our methods, do we become blameworthy?

If we can't win an issue where 90% of the population agree with us, there is clearly something wrong with what we are doing.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:18 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 10890
As a Canadian, I don't believe in "the right to bear arms." To almost anybody outside the US it doesn't make any sense. Inside the US the people who "believe in the right to bear arms" don't understand what the Second Amendment says, and what it gives right for. As for being "the radical left who hates guns" I must mention to those who don't already know, I served 11 years in the Canadian Army, 5 years of that in the infantry. I know how to use everything from a 9mm pistol through a .50cal machine gun.

The arguments for CCW fall apart once you learn about the fraud the arguments for it were based on.


The GOP’s favorite gun “academic” is a fraud

Shooting Down the Gun Lobby’s Favorite “Academic”: A Lott of Lies

NRA’s favorite ‘academic’ John Lott exposed as a data-fudging, sock-puppeting fraud

The NRA’s Fraud: Fabrication of Second Amendment Rights

Well, there is no right to bear arms here, so it is getting annoying all these gun deaths.

Were it not for a lying piece of shit, dead now, SC Justice Scalia and his cohorts, we could do something serious about guns.

I once said leave it up to the states, fuck that too. Outlaw all guns tomorrow, take them from police at the same time

_________________
"Small brown babies, clutched in their beaks"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:00 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3067
J_dogg82 wrote:
OK?

You know that when someone says "90 percent" of violent crimes are committed by felons, that statement acknowledges that the other 10 percent are committed by people who have no felony record, right?

I don't think anyone reading my posts could infer that I believed law-abiding gun owners never commit crime.

I simply debunked the claim that CCW permit holders are particularly prone to violence, or are immature toddlers who don't want their toys taken away. I would guess the reason you are circumspect in your passive post is that you know I didn't suggest what you appear to be arguing against.

Take a position. Do you support an outright ban on law-abiding criminal defense attorneys owning any guns? Are you ready for mass incarceration of otherwise law-abiding citizens who refused to give up their pistols? Trump has to explain how he'll deport 11 million people. Rather than sniping, if folks really want to ban all guns, they should say so. They should acknowledge that it takes more than passing a law to accomplish it. They need to acknowledge that until nobody has guns, there are 100,000,000 unregistered guns on the streets. They need to justify how they can keep law-abiding citizens utterly unarmed, lambs to a slaughter, while we gather all the guns and make paper-clips.

Basically, folks need to do more than be "against" guns. They need to be for a comprehensive policy. They need to do more than politicize the rare, mass-shootings with bushmasters, and focus on what policy actually responds most effectively and efficiently to the epidemic of gun violence.

Also, if the Left want to get anything done, they should also stop trying to put ridiculous labels on law-abiding gun owners. Everyone in my family has hunting rifles in his/her home because somebody in the family hunts. My sisters are "gun owners" even if they never use the guns themselves. It does absolutely no good for the Left to tell these people they are emotionally stunted malcontents bent on violence (obviously, a distilled version of insults lobbed). It doesn't do any good because 1) it's not accurate, and 2) it doesn't even sound accurate to observers, so it is more likely to convince neutral people to oppose common-sense laws than to help convince anyone the Left is right.

With 90% political support on their side, the Democrats should own the gun issue. The problem is that many really do want to take all the guns (but they also don't want to admit it, or say how, or agree they will do what is "necessary" to effectuate the policy, or agree to take responsibility when a person who surrendered her gun gets raped in her home, etc.) and that unstated intention gives the gun-nuts fertile ground to obstruct any reasonable law. "Gun registration is just gun confiscation." That's a logic fallacy. There is no such thing as a slippery slope. You can't argue against one policy by imagining a different policy that is "bound" to follow. However, I think it's pretty clear that if Ike were in control, and he knew who had guns and where, he'd go get them. There is too much tacit support for unstated gun policy.

If you want to ban guns, then say so. Then say how. If the 10% of gun crimes committed by law-abiding gun owners are still too much for you to bear, fine. But then recognize how imperfect your alternatives are.

We have a member on this board who I have spent years pointing out has never taken a position for anything. He only comes by to complain about whatever is being done, particularly in the foreign policy realm. He complained when it was Bush. He complains when it's Obama. Every time there is a tragedy, it's "proof" in his mind that he was "right" about whatever intervention or lack of intervention he is railing against.

Except you can't be right when you never take a prospective position. You also can't pretend that every tragedy is preventable, or that the cost of preventing one tragedy isn't frequently much greater than the cost of the tragedy itself.

As a lawyer, balancing tests come naturally to me at this point. We balance everything in law. There is no fundamental right not subject to reasonable limitations. Even when we say the law is ALWAYS X, and even if the law is pretty much ALWAYS X, the law pretty much always permits for Y under certain circumstances.

Sometimes a balance has taken over the original rule. For instance, a contract has always been offer+ acceptance+ consideration. If you don't have all of those, you don't have a contract you can sue on. That's the rule. Except if you make promises to an individual in which you reasonably expect the person to rely, and the person does rely, to his or her detriment, and failure to award damages would manifest an "injustice," then he or she can still sue for promissory estoppel, even though you had no contract with him or her. Also, if you never met me, and I paved your driveway on accident, because my negligence had me at the wrong house, I can still sue you for the increase in your property value from my mistake (called "unjust enrichment" - you got rich off my accident so you owe me something). So we started with a rule that says you need a contract, and then we "balanced" all these other things, and at this point the rule saying you "can't sue unless" really doesn't matter anymore does it?

Other times we claim there is a balance but there isn't. Prior instances of sexual assault on the part of a defendant are inadmissible when offered to show "behavior in conformity therewith." That's character evidence, and you can't convict someone of a crime based upon character. A person who committed an act in the past is not actually more likely to have committed a different act in the future just because of the prior conduct. We don't let people get convicted over and over again for the same bad act, by letting it come up as evidence in every other case. That's the rule. Yet, you can bet that evidence gets in 99 times out of 100. It gets in because it's offered for an "acceptable purpose" other than character, such as "motive" or "lack of mistake," etc. Everyone knows it's coming in to say "this guy molests children, so clearly this victim is telling the truth" but we pretend we are doing something else with a "balance" of "risks of unfair prejudice". Similarly, there is allegedly a motion to dismiss I can file for violation of the equal protection clause if I can show the government is applying the law unequally based upon race (14th Amendment). I was shocked to learn this, and wondered why I'd never heard of a motion to dismiss on 14th Amendment grounds. Not in law school or practice. Then I read an article from the national bar association last week saying they could not find a SINGLE CASE IN HISTORY where the motion was granted anywhere in the country. There is an ALLEGED balancing of equal protection against the need to punish crime, but apparently nobody in the whole country has ever done it.

What does this have to do with guns? Not much, I guess, except...

I am perfectly capable and willing to acknowledging there is a balancing act to do here. Guns are dangerous. Guns are also used for protection. We DO send "good" people with guns after "bad" people with guns. Pandora's box is beyond open. We can get any gun we want without a background check in minutes in most cities. We have to balance the burden we place on people's right to protect themselves from valid threats those guns already pose (and less-armed/unarmed criminals too) with the risk that gun possession causes the community at large.

Unless we are actually going to disarm the citizenry, we have to balance who should have easiest access to guns. That means we need an accurate and reasonable analysis of what groups of gun owners we actually have.

We need to balance our liberal values. Most liberals I know are against mass incarceration, particularly for non-violent offenders of "victimless" crimes. How many prisons is the Left ready to fill with folks whose only offense is keeping grandpa's shotgun, rather than turning it in on demand? I don't know. They don't generally take that much ownership of the issue.

You and others can come out in different places in this balance. I have no problem with disagreement. It took me a while to distill my own views. I am TIRED of the Left being completely irrational in this discussion though, and then always pointing the finger at the "other side" as "crazy" and recalcitrant. "To resolve conflict with others, one must first resolve conflict with oneself." (Fortune cookie.) (OK I made it up but it sounds like something Confucius might say).

At what point do our own failed methods, and our own refusal to adapt our methods, do we become blameworthy?

If we can't win an issue where 90% of the population agree with us, there is clearly something wrong with what we are doing.


a lot to digest so I hope you will forgive me if I miss something important. Im not against guns or in favor of seizing guns or applying unfair methods to disqualify people from owning or using guns. the process should be fair and not deny anyone their due process rights. I think where we disagree the most is on perpetuation of the good guy with a gun superiority/supremacy of the law abiding gun owner myth. I feel compelled to poke holes in this myth that borrows too heavily on circumstance and privilege and awards people before they've even finished what they are being awarded for. also I cant in good conscious puppet that myth or contribute to the idea that some people are superior they're not they're just people we all are. If you want my support that the Idea and practice of gun safety and responsibility is superior to the absence of that Idea and practice then I m Right there with ya.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbHi_jDF-I


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:20 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:53 am
Posts: 441
Outlaw all guns tomorrow, take them from police at the same time

Well....at least he's honest and open about his stance on guns.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:39 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011

a lot to digest so I hope you will forgive me if I miss something important. Im not against guns or in favor of seizing guns or applying unfair methods to disqualify people from owning or using guns. the process should be fair and not deny anyone their due process rights. I think where we disagree the most is on perpetuation of the good guy with a gun superiority/supremacy of the law abiding gun owner myth. I feel compelled to poke holes in this myth that borrows too heavily on circumstance and privilege and awards people before they've even finished what they are being awarded for. also I cant in good conscious puppet that myth or contribute to the idea that some people are superior they're not they're just people we all are. If you want my support that the Idea and practice of gun safety and responsibility is superior to the absence of that Idea and practice then I m Right there with ya.

Can you explain what "myth" you believe I have promoted? Specifically. What have I misrepresented?

I think I was clear that I don't carry a gun specifically because I cannot see myself using one. I can't envision the scenario where I need one, outside, perhaps, an active shooter. Still, I saw a news report (I really wish I knew where) of an interview with an active shooter trainer. He said they could find no example of an active shooter forcing a lock. If that's true, I've suggested before that locking, compartmentalized doors should become basic security.

I'm also aware that guns in the home are, perhaps 7x more likely to result in an innocent death than be to kill a bad guy. That's lying with statistics though, as that includes self-inflicted gun shots. It also includes negligent handling, and I'm obsessive with storage and handling.

The question isn't whether the CCW permit holder is making the right statistical bet. That is much more variable than the "7x" comparison indicates. Proficiency and temperment. A willingness to kill? Carelessness? I think my Marine attorney friend can handle a pistol and even use it to kill. He carried the unit SAW in combat. He also goes dangerous places. He is probably much less than 7x more likely to shoot an innocent person.

I can't make that decision for everyone. Everyone thinks they are an above average drive, and probably an above average shooter/gun handler too.

For some, the feeling of security that allows them freedom of movement is enough justification. I don't know what part of any of this is amyth though.

You can let me know.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:23 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3067
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/detroit-security-guard-fatally-shoots-driver-who-was-trying-to-run-over-woman-police-say

Quote:
Suspected thief shot, killed after dragging security guard in car

A security guard shot and killed a driver who was allegedly stealing from a construction site near Palmer Park in the area of Woodward Avenue and McNichols Road.

Police said the man who was killed was allegedly stealing from a construction site when the security guard approached him, trying to get the stolen items back. The man wouldn't cooperate, so she fired shots.........cut.

.........The security guard was hired to patrol a vacant building that was being restored. She was on duty when she saw the man she believed to be stealing from the construction site.

"I didn't know anything until I heard a gunshot and I heard that, then I looked out the window," Nix said.

Police said the security guard tried to get the items back, so she cut the man off with her red Saturn. But when she reached into the man's black Durango to retrieve the items, he pulled off, with the woman partially inside the SUV. That's when she fired shots.........cut

.......The security guard was carrying the gun as open carry on duty, police said. She did not have a concealed pistol license.

She was taken into custody Tuesday night without incident.......


when they reported this this morning they said the security guard shot a person trying to run over a woman with a car

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbHi_jDF-I


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:30 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/detroit-security-guard-fatally-shoots-driver-who-was-trying-to-run-over-woman-police-say



when they reported this this morning they said the security guard shot a person trying to run over a woman with a car

So she is the woman and the guard. The author may well have never considered that the guard and the woman were the same person after reading the police report (due to sexism?).

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:45 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3067
So she is the woman and the guard. The author may well have never considered that the guard and the woman were the same person after reading the police report (due to sexism?).


maybe maybe not

sure is quite a different characterization of why someone was shot and killed though.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbHi_jDF-I


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011

maybe maybe not

sure is quite a different characterization of why someone was shot and killed though.

No it isn't. There was a woman being dragged. A security guard was the one who shot the person as a response to the person being dragged. The woman being dragged just happened to be the guard.

I can absolutely see how a reader could get confused reading a brief police blurb that referenced a "guard" in one section and a "woman" in another.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12342
The article identified the genders in the first three sentences. The driver, who was killed, is male and the security guard, who fired the shots, is female.

_________________
IMPEACH NOW, REPLACE LATER!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011
The article identified the genders in the first three sentences. The driver, who was killed, is male and the security guard, who fired the shots, is female.

Motor is saying some other story reported it wrong.

when they reported this this morning they said the security guard shot a person trying to run over a woman with a car

That's not technically wrong, I guess. It's just that the guard and the woman are the same.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:08 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3067
No it isn't. There was a woman being dragged. A security guard was the one who shot the person as a response to the person being dragged. The woman being dragged just happened to be the guard.

I can absolutely see how a reader could get confused reading a brief police blurb that referenced a "guard" in one section and a "woman" in another.


no thats what the news said was an upcoming story this morning that a security guard shot a person trying to run over a woman with their car.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbHi_jDF-I


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:29 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:32 pm
Posts: 14011

no thats what the news said was an upcoming story this morning that a security guard shot a person trying to run over a woman with their car.

OK.

_________________
We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.-MLK.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ely, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group