More Road Rage Murders

[Steve James]

This latest decision was about the district's right to prohibit citizens from keeping weapons in their homes for self defense. Of course, note that is a federalist decision that reaffirms the primacy of the Federal Constitution over decions made by state legislatures. It opens the door to more suits at the state level to overturn laws about home ownership.

Anyway, re criminals and guns, yeah, they can always get them. However, in places where there are less guns, there are always less gun crimes, and therefore killings. Guns exist, so they're available. As far as the numbers go, they don't really matter. If the crime rate goes up because of more guns, that will only reinforce the argument that more people need to be armed. If it were truly a numbers game the the argument could be made that "more" citizens need to be armed. For ex., if 5% of the population are armed criminals, then if 25% of the general citizenry were armed, that might provide a deterrent. If that 25% were organized into an armed para-military body --like a community police force (or a militia?), that would give criminals something to worry about.

The "what if" argument (i.e., what about the unarmed family) is moot. Cops are armed; cops get shot. Just as there will always be some criminal who wants to use a gun, there will always be some family with a weapon --evenunder the pillow- that gets taken by surprise. The exceptions balance themselves out. What, is it something like 90% or police officers never fire their weapons on duty, but I need a weapon "just in case." Nah, I don't need one. I might want one, though, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

It's just not some matter of Constitutional indignation about the infringement on my right. The law has not stopped people who want guns from getting them --the American way, i.e., by hook or by crook. As in "yeah, the gov't says I can't do this, but screw 'em, I just do it like this... "

But, I have to say that, in the days of the Founders, there were no supermarkets. There weren't even buchers in most of the countryside. So, I don't agree that they imagined that the majority of the country wouldn't be armed --at least to hunt for food. They were mostly gentleman farmers anyway. However, the ones who were city dwellers probably didn't walk around armed. The gentlemen may have owned pistols. Non-gentry would have owned long guns, but not in the cities.

In NYC, Phil, Boston, etc., I think the British imposed restrictions on colonial gun ownership. (Buddy might know better.). And, they imposed other restrictions because ... they restricted gun ownership. Heck, it's the same with the Americans and the Indians. So, the Founders wanted to protect that right. Now, why people choose to exercise that right is another thing. Yet, I'm sure that some politician will run on a platform of "a gun in every closet" and "a chicken in every pot." Or, is that chicken and pot for every body?? Could have won in the 70s.

[Dmitri]

Ban all guns! No one should have access to guns at all therefore everyone will be nice to each other and we'll all be safe and sing LaLa together...

Oh wait, we tried that already...;/

when?

Well, DC came pretty close, probably the most gun-restrictive place in the US which also happens to be the most crime-ridden. Maybe a coincidence, but maybe not.

Good people + more guns = good
Good people + guns = good
Good people = good
Bad people = bad
Bad people + guns = worse
Bad people + more guns = worst

Well, here's a better (more relevant) logic IMHO:
Fact: There will always be 'bad people'.
Fact: Those 'bad people' will always have guns.
Question: Should the 'good people' have access to guns too or not?

A huge problem in all this is the general public's sheer unfamiliarity with firearms. Most have never seen a real one, let alone went to a range to shoot it. People delegate their safety to the police, forgetting that the job of the police is to uphold the law, not to protect people. Each person is ultimately the one responsible for his or her own safety (and safety of their dependents.)

This is all part of a much bigger question: are people willing to take responsibility for their own lives?
The answers are in how incredibly few people (globally speaking) are supporting the ideas of the likes of Ron Paul.
People are lazy, they want to live a cozy life. I am the same way, but the difference is that I would be willing to sacrifice that neat safe coziness for true personal liberty (if everything else fell into place/worked out, which it probably never will), whereas the vast majority just doesn't care. However there is one HUGE problem with not caring -- government is not perfect, so without the checks and balances, shit WILL happens -- I mean, just look what we've got now in this country, marching under the general guise of "safety" and "security"...

Ehh... [an old-Jewish-guy-waving-hand sound ]

[Darthwing Teorist]

I prayed for the Bolognas this morning.

[Steve James]

Fwiw,

Fact: There will always be 'bad people'.
Fact: Those 'bad people' will always have guns.
Question: Should the 'good people' have access to guns too or not?

Your second premise is obviously false on two levels. One, not all bad people have guns or use them. Two, "good people" have access to guns.

There will always be wife beaters,
Wife beaters will always have access to guns,
Shouldn't wives have access to guns too?

[Dmitri]

Sorry it wasn't clear enough for you, what I was trying to say there, but if you can't see the point I'm trying to make, I don't know how else to express it...

[Steve James]

Sure, I can interpret the rationale for your position. I.e., your argument is that a) if criminals have guns, then non-criminals should be allowed to have guns, or they at least should not be prevented from having guns. Fine, but it's neither a logical conclusion nor a solution to anything. It's just a rationale for gun ownership.

What do I mean by a conclusion or a solution? Well, that's the point of logic, right? as opposed to "rhetoric", which is just meant to persuade. For ex., ok, criminals have guns is a true a premise as ordinary citizens have guns. Using criminals as an argument is primarily a scare tactic. It might make someone feel better, but it has done absolutely nothing about the bad men.

Your example doesn't have a conclusion; it asks a question, with the implication "Shouldn't the good people be able to protect themselves from the bad." Sure, they should. Who'd argue against that straw man? The question; the argument is about "how" the members of society should do it. Is owning a gun the only way to prevent crime? I dunno.

So, it's not that I'm blind to your argument. I don't think it's logical. The prevalence of guns has made the society (that we live in today) less safe. I'm not against gun ownership. I'm not "for" gun ownership either. I think, and I've said it before, that most people own weapons for the worst or wrong reasons. And, they use those weapons 10x less (I've done research) than they have used whatever martial art they study. So, there.

I say, the people who think they need a gun to protect themselves will get guns no matter what the law is and then take the consequences. "Wouldn't" you? Do ya think the Indians cared that they weren't allowed to own? I have never met someone who wanted a gun who didn't get one. Some have bitched about how they've had to skirt the law, though. Have you ever heard of anyone doing that?

[Dmitri]

Using criminals as an argument is primarily a scare tactic. It might make someone feel better, but it has done absolutely nothing about the bad men.

You can't do anything about "the bad men"; you can only suggest to the "good men" to take advantage of the opportunity to protect themselves better -- by providing that opportunity in the first place.

The primary difference between "good guys" and "bad guys" here is that the latter don't mind breaking the law, whereas the former do.

I have never met someone who wanted a gun who didn't get one. Some have bitched about how they've had to skirt the law, though. Have you ever heard of anyone doing that?

Yes, and that's my whole point. The laws that prohibit them from obtaining guns in a legal fashion are CREATING CRIME. They are turning "good guys" into "bad guys", in that sense. And there's NO reason for it whatsoever, aside from idiotic irrational fear of "guns" being "out there" -- fear coming from people who had only seen them in Hollywood flicks.

OK, gotta go pack... Driving 7 horses from Atlanta to upstate NY, taking off in a couple hours. See ya on Monday.

[Ben]

Well these things don't happen in Europe.

People in Europe know how to drive.

[Steve James]

All of that about the creation of crime is easy to say. The fact is that all cultures with less guns have less gun violence. And, the only way your argument about deterrence would work would be if 1) civilians possessing guns will stop bad men from using guns, which is highley unlikely and/or 2) all bad men would have the expectation that all citizens would be armed.

I don't even accept the premise that those who do not arm themselves are either irresponsible or that gun owners are more responsible. In fact, most of those who I've heard promote gun possession for self defense seem to be gun irresponsible. For ex., at your gun club, or in your training, what did they tell you was the "safe" way to store or keep your weapon at home?

Anywho, bon voyage.

[gryphonz]

Sociopaths dare to use violence cos they think their victims are defenceless. I was at Vtech on 4/16 last year. Do you understand how fucking frustrating it is to know that I've got the skills to protect myself, but not the legal means while on campus? I was 100 yards away, an ex-sergeant with no gun. That counts for nuts. Do yourself and your family a favor, and carry at least something.

[Steve James]

The fact that someone gets shot near you doesn't mean that you could have done anything if you had been armed. Iinm, the whole VT event took less than 10 minutes. But, even so, the shooter had no intention of survival. In Columbine, which took a lot longer, the shooters took their own lives after they had done as much damage as they could, even though the school was surrounded by SWAT.

Not too long ago, a guy in Scotland entered a kindergarten classroom and stabbed 8 children to death. Using your reasoning, who should have been armed? the teachers or the students? and should they have wielded guns or knives?

Carry if you want. It would be more logical to have armed guards i nall classrooms. But, let's be clear. Many people would argue that the "problem" was that Dylan, Kliebold, Cho, etc. were able to arm themselves to the teeth. Their parents weren't safer, were they?

I understand your frustration, but I don't think you could have done anything about it, unfortunately. Ever thought about joining the police force? Really.

[Steve James]

Well these things don't happen in Europe.

People in Europe know how to drive.

There's a lot of road rage in France and Italy, but it's rarer (ime) in Germany. There you can get a ticket for giving another driver the finger. (Alles en ordnung). In France, people yell and scream at each other; but I have never seen a fight (blows thrown). Now, doesn't mean it doesn't happen or won't happen.

It might be that it's the way people try to settle disputes that is culturally different.

[gryphonz]

Appalachian state. Students had shotguns in their cars to stop the shooter with. I dunno if I could've helped, but the point is there are fucked up individuals around us, and they don't just stay out of your way cos ur a good person doin good things. Sometimes, they come looking for u in ur home and in ur classroom, and I think we should be prepared, rather than just say, that'll never happen.

I was supposed to be in that class, cept I suck at French and dropped the class. If I'd been better at French, I'd be dead, cos I had no gun. Simple.

[Steve James]

Yep, the fact is that there are some unstable people out there. They all have guns.

I think I said that it's ok with me if you want to carry. If you save someone's life, good on you. I'm a teacher in a school with no metal detectors. Sure, if a student comes in with an AK-47, it'd be good for me to be packing, especially if he came into my class. Of course, if all the other students were packing, that might be better, right? Thus, it would be "best" if all of us came to school with AK-47s, just in case.

But, sorry, I don't think there's any logic in connecting the acts of a few crazies in schools with the somewhat reasonable desire to have protection in the home. Now, personally, I think that --using your own reasoning-- the guys who break into your house will do so when the family is asleep. How many times are children literally kidnapped out of their rooms? Do you remember Polly Klaas? to sort of mix threads. Did it matter that her father had a shotgun?

Face it. You ain't "ready for anything" all time, armed or not.

I hate to say this because I'm afraid I can't live up to it, but if the guy comes into my classroom to get my students, then he will have to go through me. The same thing goes for my kids. Frankly, if he came into the room to shoot me, I'm done. Evern if I were armed, I wouldn't shoot first. Cops have a hard enough time making those decisions, I'd be a liar to say that I was prepared. I don't even think about it.

[gryphonz]

I don't think we'll be able to convince each other to switch stances, cos of my ex-vocation and experiences and your profession.

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. - Sun Tzu