U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 23, 2009 03:31 PM UTC
191 Comments
A bit of a slower day today so I thought I’d poke my head in.
Plus, this is too delicious not to share with you all. Hehehe.
A little red meat, so to speak, to throw in Wade’s and Libertad’s cage early in the morning.
Here’s the actual news report…
H/T RedState
I’ll try to check back in later today – hope everyone’s doing well and I’d love to do another meetup.
PS – JeffcoBlue, the corn in my crap has more class than you do, apparently, although I’d love to buy you a beer sometime and show you how to accept and…gasp…enjoy people who might think differently than you do.
…on the Markey/Gundamentalist thread from yesterday.
ESPECIALLY on the poll.
Debating gun control with a certain mindset is like teaching a pig to dance.
An armed Ward Churchill reminds me of when they take a celebrity’s photo with a guitar they don’t play. Besides, the authorities don’t like it when you put complete fiction down on the background check to buy a weapon, so it’s only a fictional photo.
BTW I like my SOCOM. Old school, and the 7.62 will go through the car if need be. For handguns, I currently like the outlandishly expensive .40 my Glock 23 shoots. Lots of stopping power and a short enough barrel to conceal (hopefully permanently) anywhere.
You must be doing as well as you claim.
BTW, as a proud Conservative, I know that you refuse to favor one group over another in terms of special hiring practices.
However, I ask what you would do if the State Dept of Vets Affairs approached you and asked you to hire recent discharged vets over other potential employees.
Got any thoughts, pro or con? What would it take for you to consider it? Reject it?
Don’t worry – I won’t accuse you of wanting the terrorists to win if you would say no. I’m just looking for some input before my next meeting at El Pomar…
I’d be more likely to hire vets anyway.
I’m not a wealthy man, just a happy one. I think you’d be surprised at my big “project” at work and what it is. We’ll definitely have to meet up at some point.
I get who you are pretty well. But that response isn’t something I package and bring to the El Pomar Military And Veterans Affairs Committee.
WHY would you hire a vet before anyone else? If the State said you HAD to hire one first, would you fight it? Why?
Government doesn’t get to tell me whom to hire. Period. Ever.
This particular government just took political control of the US Census, for God’s sake. I’d shut down any business I’m involved with rather than be forced to hire anyone someone else deems appropriate for my private endeavor.
I’d look at Vets as understanding much of the nature of my particular line of work better than most. Depending on the vet, I think I’d have a lot in common with them, and I owe every single one of them a favor if I can do it.
I’m amazed Union Bosses make Vets pay forced union dues…
please, Libertard…..do tell.
(That means post a link to support your argument…)
If we make businesses give vets jobs first as you suggest, then shouldn’t the unions forgo forced union dues from the members? Some Vets will be forced to join a union as a condition of the job (you know corrupt employers that use union contracts to control their workers).
…my question to LB was IF he had to hire vets, and what circumstances he would give preferences to hiring vets.
Not a new unfunded mandate from the secret DemocratIC cabal I swore my allegiance to.
But, for example, do you mean the Helmets to Hardhats program where unions give jobs to Vets, train them in that job, all in return requiring them to join that union?
As opposed to my buddy who works for EDS, who was told he had to pay the company for his job training in the INCA programming language, or else he would be fired?
Why would your buddy even think about going to EDS when these Unions were handing out jobs and training?
Is he so economically backwards that he chooses a repressive corporate position to that of a a hardhat that will bring America environmental justice, transportation justice or social justice?
p.s. I love your new mantra … calling me a ‘hater’.
1. Do you have some proof (in the form of a link to somewherz on the interwebs) to back up your allegation?
2. Which is worse – being “forced” to join a union to get job training, health care benefits and a job; or getting a job and then being forced to pay for proprietary training (which cannot be given anywhere else) to do the job you were hired to do?
BTW, my buddy is a grad from Regis University business school in ’88 – the closest he got to the military was watching Band of Brothers on HBO.
Restate Question 1 … what allegation? The one where I was called a ‘hater’?
2. Both are great because you wind up employed, contributing to yourself and best for you … paying taxes minus $13/week dues to Obama’s paycheck relief program.
You keep giving more information about your buddy, first it appeared he was a Vet, now he is a not a Vet, but a Regis Univ. grad.
Why do you always look for the worst in things?
— from a couple of posts up
and, even so, don’t buy the arguments that defend the persistent availability of instruments of destruction, with such blithe indifference to the parents who lose young children, and others who lose loved ones, due to your perceived need to own such dangerous toys.
Yes, Steve, the possession and use of an illegal firearm can severely f*ck up someone’s day. So can the use of a legal firearm by a nutjob in a crowded Texas cafeteria (where I lost a LTC I worked with in Fort Hood.)
But so can a slanderous news article. Or a DA & Police department bent on ruining someone with excessive searches, harassing arrests and spurious comments to the media.
You are right about one thing – guns are not toys. The people that cause the majority of problems with legal and illegal firearms possession think that they are – or fashion accessories. Or necessary to protect themselves from the Grey Alien-backed UN Occupation government.
All guns all the time will not work. Neither will no guns none of the time. People on both sides will continue to hoot and screech for either solution, while the rest of us understand moderation and sensible regulation, and live in the real world.
and is imbued with mechanisms for changing it. One leading constitutional scholar, and author of one of the constitutional law text books used in law schools, is convinced that a new constitutional convention is needed. In any case, many things that were enshrined in the constitution (eg, the right to own slaves and their value as 3/5 of a person, the selection of senators by the state legislature rather than by the people, the lack of American citizenship status of all African Americans, the lack of the vote for women, segregation, etc., etc.) have been well-discarded. There is no reason to assume that just because it’s in the constitution, it’s a good idea.
See below for rest of answer.
Bringing up slavery doesn’t create a good argument for anti-firearms laws.
Nice try.
To pin him down on very specifically what about particular weapons it is that he wants to ban. What makes those features different? Will banning those particular weapons make any difference at all in terms of crime?
I’ll keep out of the way. 🙂
Law enforcement agents and organizations are universally in favor of bans on assault rifles. They don’t like being outgunned on the streets. Successfully banning private ownership of assault rifles would take them out of the hands of organized crime. And a successful ban can be accomplished by banning the rounds; once used, they are out of circulation, and must be replaced, unlike the rifles themselves.
But my position is simpler than that: I favor moving toward an outright ban of all privately owned firearms, something that won’t be attained in my lifetime, but is probably more or less inevitable in the long sweep of history (as suggested by the John Maynard Keynes quote I used to use as a tag line: “People will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives”). Each move in that direction moves the date of its accomplishment forward, and saves all of the lives that would have been lost by allowing the natural evolution of human culture to drag along more slowly.
Permitting private ownership of weapons is stupid social policy. It’s an artifact of a revolutionary ideal that is completely anachronistic, both due to the fact that violent revolution has grown out of favor (for good reason), and the fact that the government has access to weapons and tools that would render the ones that are privately owned no match for their adversary in any case.
argument that it must be right if it’s in the Constitution. I combine my refutation of that foolish argument with arguments for why firearms bans are good social policy. And this is very much like arguing against slavery in the antebellum South: A position that the momentum of world history is clearly defining as either inhumane or dysfunctional is still widely held and defended with weak and anachronistic arguments, while those who make the simple and obviously valid arguments against it are treated as pariahs for opposing the conventional wisdom.
The legality of private ownership of weapons is so obviously bad social policy that people from those countries that aren’t diseased by the assumptions that justify it see it as one of those Neanderthal habits that Americans can’t seem to part with. We are the developed country with the laxest gun regulation, and the highest rates of deadly violence. And deadly violence is a big, big problem. Despite your belittling of my bringing up dead kids, people really don’t like to see their children get blown away. Few assaults on human dignity and well-being are more profound and horrifying than that one.
Many of us value peace over violence, human welfare over some dysfunctional fetishized version of “liberty,” human happiness and security over the facilitation of human mutual predation and infliction of suffering. I know that to you, LB, that’s just crazy. I mean, really, what’s more important: Trying to increase human safety and welfare, or not interfering with people’s right to own instruments of destruction? We agree on one thing only: The answer is painfully obvious.
myself included, believe we should be striving for peace, human welfare, reducing human suffering AND liberty. Let’s work towards peace and reducing human suffering without trampling on our liberties (including the 2nd amandment). Democrats have gained momentum nationally and in Colorado because we as a people and a party have embraced progressive ideas like civil liberties, the need for a new, sustainable energy plan, following the Geneva Convention and NOT torturing, a desire to do some nation building here at home instead of creating wars under false pretenses ect…..let’s not lose our democratic momentum by spewing crap like banning private ownership of guns. Mr. Harvey, if your out on the street some day getting robbed and beaten down, I hope there is a citizen nearby (maybe a veteran for instance) that legally is carrying a handgun to save you. Use your obvious talents in some other arena and leave the 2nd amendment, law abiding citizens and our Liberty alone.
.
I think many conservatives would claim that protecting civil liberties and following the Geneva Conventions are actually conservative ideas.
.
I think you’re confusing classical liberalism with conservatism.
The liberal tradition from John Locke and the other enlightenment-era philosophers, directly led to the concepts of liberty and freedom as we know them today.
While many conservatives may have adopted those ideals in the 20th century–only to have them picked apart by the Neo-Cons–classical conservatism is far more concerned with the needs of the state and keeping its traditional values intact. In the 18th century, that didn’t include any of the rights laid out by the Bill of Rights.
So while I agree that many conservatives would agree that those things are incredibly important, I don’t think you could properly characterize them as anything other than liberal ideas.
.
who, you might agree, are generally unaware of the esoteric arguments of Mill, Spinoza, and Rousseau. We are not really taking our lead from the classics, but from the uniquely American brand of republican democracy. Or democratic republicanism. I can’t keep those two straight.
At least I didn’t confuse “conservative” with “neo-conservative,” which are further apart than “conservative” and “liberal.”
.
but I think that the mainstream “conservatives” are far less concerned with the bill of rights (at least with amendments 3-10) than we are.
Their silence on the Bush Administration’s thrashing of the constitution was evidence enough that they couldn’t care less.
Don’t you know that all good, thoughtful positions are progressive ideals? 🙂
When this nation first conceived of the notion of civil liberties, we decided to leave the conservative crown. Questioning authority, individual and civil liberties, protecting individuals from tyranny and cruelty and easing suffering ect… have historically always been progressive ideals.
.
but if they are truly good and thoughtful, the conservatives co opt them.
.
I’ll use my talents, and energy, and determination, to argue all points that I consider important, to defy conventional wisdom when I consider conventional wisdom wrong, to be the lone voice against a multitude who are certain of a mistaken truth when that mistaken truth is the source of great mischief and suffering.
“Liberty” is never absolute, nor should it be. We limit it to protect ourselves from one another. It requires precise thought and consideration to determine the optimal place to draw the line between limiting liberty for mutual benefit, and leaving each to choose for themselves what is the best course of action. To make a fetish out of “liberty” describes neither our social system as it is nor as it should be. No sane person argues that individuals should have the liberty to murder, rape, steal, or even “yell fire in a crowded theatre,” to take Justice Holmes’ famous example. The question, then, in each instance, is where to draw the line.
I argue my position precisely because I consider it a higher priority to reduce the number of instances of an innocent person being attacked with deadly force than to allow the rate to remain obscenely high by appealing to a discredited anecdote (the protection against the predator). Once again, those societies that ban private ownership of firearms have less instances of innocent people falling victim to deadly violence (and often less instances of people falling victim to violence, period).
I appreciate your suggestion about how I should exercise my first amendment rights and, after having given it all of the consideration that it is due, decline to follow it.
The American gun culture is at the heart of enormous suffering in this country. If repealing the second amendment were a requirement to dismantling that culture, then I would be (and in fact am) a staunch advocate of repealing the second amendment. It’s not a commonly held position, it’s not a popular position, it’s not a position that you like. But it is a well-reasoned position, based on the solid application of logic to evidence, and one which I will argue unabashedly.
suggest that you not exercise your first amendment rights. I am sorry if you interpreted my statement above as such. That was not my intension and I am hopeful you might know that. In fact, honest debate and questioning authority is healthy. However, please understand that when you make and mix statements about reducing suffering in the same breath with banning private ownership of guns, some will find that offensive and a distortion of the truth.You can use words like logic and well-reasoned position all you like in your arguement and it will not convince me to change my position on this issue. My life experiences along with my deep appreciation of our civil liberties will not allow me to be persuaded to go against what is good and right.
We should embrace our civil liberties and work towards progressive priorities like reducing suffering simultaniously.
It’s ok. Good people can disagree.
in any form you choose. But if I choose to associate the easy accessability of instruments which are, once again, designed to propel projectiles at high velocities into another’s flesh, with suffering, I do not feel wholly irrational in doing so. Personally, I think I would consider it to be an experience that could reasonably be described as “suffering” were such a projective to be propelled into my flesh. And, as I’ve already stated, the suffering would be thousands of times greater were the projectile to be propelled into my young daughter’s flesh.
But this is not just a hypothetical, that such things could happen, but, fortunately, rarely do. No, the fact is that those projectiles are quite frequently propelled into the flesh of innocent people in this country. And both those people, and their loved ones, suffer mightily as a result.
Now, if you think it might be offensive to some to draw that relationship between, on the one hand, a projectile ripping through the flesh of innocent people, and, on the other hand, the suffering of those people and of their loved ones, all I can say is that I am willing to offend them. If you say that it is a distortion of the truth to suggest some relationship between those two phenomena (projectile ripping flesh, and people suffering), then all I can say is we define “distortion of the truth” differently.
You call gun ownership a “civil liberty.” I call it a phenomenally dysfunctional social policy. Just to press forward my most universally admired analogy on this thread, John Calhoun argued in the 1930s that the threat of depriving southern slave owners of their slaves was a threat to their (the slave owners’) civil liberties (really). So what is defined as a civil liberty in one epoch is redefined as a national embarrassment in another.
Yes. Good people can disagree. And good people can cling to beliefs that have bad results. And good people can fight mightily to disentangle other good people from such beliefs, and good people, over time, can make a better world.
to try to do your part to make a better world. I support the spirit of your fight. I will not support your effort/fight to ban private gun ownership.
If a felon, who aquired his gun illegally and could purchase a gun illegally even if guns were banned, has broken into a home and shoots someone, I would say the victim was suffering. But, this victim would be suffering whether guns were legal or not. The criminals will still be able to purchase guns regardless of the laws. If a neighbor, who owns a gun legally hears the struggle and comes to the aid of his neighbor and shoots the intruder, I would not call the shooting of this felon intruder suffering. I would call this thank goodness for the 2nd amendment. It might just save the life of the homeowner victim.
As I’ve said all along, a complete ban could be made somewhat effective by a ban on the manufacture, sale, and importation of bullets. Far fewer felons would be able to afford the phenomenally expensive bullets that would have to illicitly manufactured (not grown), transported, and sold, all at high risk and so with limited supply and at an exorbitant price.
And, over time, one hopes that a world of increasingly illegalized private firearms would create ever stronger institutions to ferret out and destroy those that still exist. It would be a multi-generation project, a gift to the future, and perhaps even at a cost at times in the present.
I’m not willing to surrender to a regime based on an armed population maintaining a precarious and overly-violent “civil order.” Others already have done better, and we could do better as well. I think it would be wiser to emulate the most peaceful societies, rather than cling to a failed model on the justification that, even if we are an obscenely violent society, at least it is an obscenely violent society in which each has a chance of killing another before the other kills him, because everyone gets to own a gun.
Not to mention the many other scenarios that exist, the many other tragedies that ensue, the accidents, the kids with too much access and too little judgment, the intruder himself…. I’d rather work toward no one having a gun, than accept everyone (who wants one) having a gun. I think it’s clear which is optimal.
But for the better, rather than to be more similar to you.
Steve – one of the greatest beauties of the Constitution is that it protects people who know what they’re doing around firearms (like me) from nannyists who don’t (like you).
You know I mean that with respect, but whatever sad story you can come up with about children dying, etc., I’ll bet I can demonstrate that the gun was most likely being illegally purchased or used, which your gun laws don’t stop anyway.
Here’s a good example – can you explain (no Wiki or other links) why the “AK-47” should be banned? What features of that particular firearm are so dastardly that it needs to be struck from society?
Short answer – the AK series was designed for combat.
Close, ugly, deadly combat.
With other people who also have fully automatic weapons.
So as to cause maximum casualties either at short range or at longer distances.
That’s a question for Steve, firearms expert.
My guess is that it should be banned because it “looks scary”.
I’ll ask you after Steve weighs in, Dan. I think we’d have a pretty good debate over specific characteristics of certain weapons, but I don’t want to feed any information and tip my hand.
I’m looking forward to you (I hope) making a NON-It’s-Constitutional case for the private ownership of assault rifles.
Is that most opposed to Assault rifles can’t define what that even means, and which features are a bad idea and why.
Dan can, I get that. But I’ll bet Steve can’t (well, now he can since he’s probably been scouring the interwebs since I challenged him about it).
…this issue and definition will not be resolved by academic study or scouring wikipedia for the bio of the inventor of the AK series.
It’s experience and institutional knowledge. F’r instance, the M1 Garand rifle is designed for combat…but is also highly sought after by hunters and target shooters for a variety of reasons. (Heck, I’d take one if I could afford it.)
If you look at the stats, it seems harmless enough – 30.06 long round and a 8 round magazine that must be fully expended or reloaded with new clip. It’s so frikkin’ huge that it’s not going to be used under a coat to hold up a liquor store.
But it is a combat weapon – it has a bayonet lug, and you can drop someone from 1k with the proper skills and zeroed sights.
And it’s never been banned by the feds. It shouldn’t be.
But if you decided to classify weapons on info you scour from Wikipedia, you would ban this one, because it says it’s a combat weapon and you could (potentially) convert it to an M14 fully automatic version (with months of time and thousands of dollars of parts you may or may not be able to buy.)
That’s why Steve’s not back to yo on the focused question. We may still get a constitutional lecture…
and I don’t consider myself an expert on firearms. Obviously, it hasn’t been my primary interest in life (though, as I informed you before, by quest for experience in general did lead me to some familiarity with them).
My arguments don’t depend on the features of individual weapons, since I’m in favor of banning all private ownership of all firearms, period (something that obviously isn’t going to happen any time soon), and, therefore, any ban on any firearm is a step in the right direction as far as I’m concerned. I don’t have to distinguish between firearms to justify that position.
So, without conceding to you your redefinition of the debate, I will say this: weapons with a certain range and with automatic or semi-automatic firing capabilities would be a reasonable place to draw the line.
Are already illegal for nearly all non-law-enforcement folks. With very tough sentences for their illegal ownership.
So banning all semi-automatic rifles is your starting point?
Weapons with a certain range? Ok. How do you like this gun?
1200 rounds/minute, but not effective, realistically beyond about 30 yards or so. Which side does this weapon come down on for you?
I think it would be more intellectually honest for you to not enter the debate on the assault-weapons ban, and simply respond that you want to ban all private ownership of weapons.
It would make these long, drawn-out posts and endless explanations so unnecessary.
and stated that I was just accomodating your request, not arguing something that I consider relevant. How much more honesty do you want?
You asked for a basis for disinguishing an AK-47, and I gave you one. Now you want to test the line with a series of particular examples? How clever! Do you know that the law is all about drawing lines, and having them tested, and redrawing them? The fact that you can challenge one of those lines is absolutely irrelevant. It is always the case. So, you advocate no laws, since no lines drawn are ever beyond challenges? Good for you.
You feel that by defining this debate in terms of expertise regarding particular weapons, you win. So drug cartels win a debate against advocates of laws against the smuggling of narcotics when the cartels show that they know more about those narcotics than their opponents do? LB, you can “signal” your victorious vanquishing of my arguments all you want, but you have neither logic nor evidence on your side. Only irrelevant details that don’t touch upon the reasons why legal private ownership of weapons is problematic.
And, of course, recourse to attacking form (the length of my replies, trying to address all that you have demanded of me) over substance (the actual arguments made) is always a favorite tactic of the…, pardon the expression…, intellectually unarmed (or at least out-gunned).
I’m an expert marksman with an M16 asault rifle, and can (or, at least, could) assemble and disassemble it in the dark in a matter of seconds. So your assumption that people who oppose guns must not know anything about them is clearly erroneous in this case.
Second of all, “nanny state” generally refers to laws that protect people from themselves, not laws that protect people from one another. Few people oppose laws against murder, assault, robbery, rape, and other crimes of predation. Of course, these are laws against the acts, rather than the means of committing such acts. But, then again, few people support unlimited market access to nuclear weapons. Neither of these sets of prohibitions (those against violence by one against another, and those against access to certain means of violence by some against others) are considered “nanny state” issues, and few reasonable people would think to suggest that they are not necessary to the preservation of public safety.
I’ve already discussed how to prevent the use of firearms, if they were banned outright, or of particular firearms that are banned outright: Ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of the rounds needed for that firearm. You are right that gun laws which permit guns to some with licenses and not to others without them are ineffective, which is why we have to start banning ownership outright. Those countries that have done so have far lower rates of deadly violence than we do. That’s a simple fact (neither a causal assertion nor irrelevant).
I don’t need to come up with a reason why AK-47s need to be banned, other than that there is no reason why they need to be privately owned.
Aside from the fact that many gun deaths are caused by legally owned guns, either as the result of children getting hold of them, or being used in fits of rage, or in accidental shootings, there is a difference between ineffective patch-work gun regulation, and comprehensive gun regulation. I favor the latter, period. There is no reasonable argument for private gun ownership that trumps the very real suffering and destruction that such weapons cause. Your right to extend your penis with a rifle does not trump my 5-year-old daughter’s right to be as safe as reasonably attainable within the context of our social system.
At least you’re being rational and pragmatic about it.
I have firearms specifically to protect my daughters from the penises (peni?) of someone who might barge into my home with a gun they bought illegally. Your daughter is very, very safe from my guns.
Really? Well, I disagree.
See, what you’re doing is using scary imagery of AK’s and dead children to try to ban all firearms. You can’t come up with a reason to ban assault weapons in particular because you don’t know or really care why other than the bent banana clip favored by Soviets and terrorists is an indelible image in the eyes of American citizens.
“Nanny State” to me is people who would presume to infringe on the freedom of others under the guise they know better for people than they know for themselves, and you just demonstrated it.
Aristotle – do you see my point now?
which you conveniently disregard. I told you first that my argument doesn’t depend on distinguishing between weapons, and then, without conceding your definition of the debate, gave you a precise answer as to by what criteria assault rifles can be distinguished for a ban. All without reference to Wikipedia.
Again, those countries that have outright bans on privately owned firearms have the lowest rates of deadly violence. In such countries, there is no danger of my daughter being in the hosue of a friend with an unsecured firearm that ends up blowing a hole in her. And, by definition, she is, on the whole, safer from deadly violence there, than here, where everyone is armed and ready to blow someone else away if need be.
Your logic of an armed society in which public protection is privately attained has been tested, and failed. The feud between the Hatfields and McCoys, for instance, was the product of a system of private justice, in which each family knew that if they offended another, the other would retaliate. And, yes, it does indeed work…, until it doesn’t, and then it is a recipe for escalating violence. In other words, private guarantees of peace through mutual threat of violence works locally in the short run, but breaks apart in horrible ways globally (or nationally) in the long run.
The whole point of government, and what permits it to work effectively, is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. It is our agent for maintaining the peace against those who would disrupt it, both at home and abroad. That works so much better than people taking that role upon themselves.
Look at the difference between a nation-state and the international arena. Laws are next-to-meaningless internationally, because each nation is armed and has not ceded its right to use deadly force to any overarching entity which could enforce laws binding among them.
You advocate for a system based on the war of all against all, to everyone’s detriment. I advocate a system of collective pacification for everyone’s benefit. Guess what? Only the latter actually is to everyone’s benefit. The former is to everyone’s detriment. And that is both an empirical and mathematical fact.
You’re simply wrong in many cases about gun laws leading to reduced violent crime.
Look, let’s just end the argument.
You want to repeal the Second Amendment, and I and a large majority of others do not.
We won’t get anywhere further with sad stories of little kids, etc.
I will never, for the rest of my days on earth support a repeal like you want, and I can demonstrate why over and over again.
My mind is open as far as tweaking local laws, but generally,and percentage-wise nearly everyone that’s going to legally own a weapon is not going to use it illegally or stupidly. I like my chances with that.
The murder rate in America is 8.7 times what it is in England, the country you chose above as evidence that gun ownership prohibition doesn’t reduce the rate of deadly violence:
http://www.techsupportforum.co…
And you’re right: A lot of people don’t want to repeal the second amendment (or see SCOTUS overturn its dubious interpretation of it as granting a private right, something few Constitutional scholars had ever interpreted it to mean). A lot of people didn’t want to end slavery, though I would have vigorously oppose them had I been there. A lot of people didn’t want to end Jim Crow, or give the vote to women, or define child abuse as illegal. What a lot of people do and don’t want to do is not the final word in what should and shouldn’t be done. Some of us still put forth reason and evidence, and organize and fight, to persuade and to defeat those who advocate positions that reduce rather than augment human welfare.
I’m done. This is nonsense, Steve.
So anything that’s in the Constitution that you have an issue with, you’re going to compare it to slavery and Jim Crow?
I hate to break it to you, but those things were eventually and righteously changed.
The 2nd Amendment will never be overturned.
Does it just chap your ass knowing that you’re safer being around me because I’m carrying a concealed weapon, rather than in spite of it?
Like I said, let’s drop this. You’re not going to find too many Americans that want a full gun ban, so let’s move on.
and the evidence does not support the conclusion that an armed society is a safer society. We are an armed society, and a less safe society. That is the conclusion that both reason and cross-national evidence support.
Anything that I have a well-reasoned and empirically supported issue with, whether it’s in the consitution or not, is something I will mobilize well reasoned and empirically supported arguments against.
Some day, many generations from now, I am virtually certain that Americans will look back upon our days of being gun-toting vigilantes with a touch of nostalgia born of ignorance (like that associated with the gangster area of the roaring 20s, or the gun-fighters of the wild west), but also with a sense of relief and joy to live in a more peaceful and constructive society, that places human welfare and safety above the need of some to maintain and project their private capacity for violence.
“People will do the rational thing, but only after exploring all other alternatives.” Our love-affair with guns is one of those alternatives we are still exploring, while those societies more advanced than us along the road to rationality look upon us with bemused concern.
I’m now a “gun-toting vigilante”?
Wow! I’m back five minutes and I already kicked Harvey’s ass on gun control!
🙂
I look forward to seeing you again. Truly.
concentrating the legitimite use of deadly force in the hands of the government, or leaving it in the hands of private citizens. The defense of leaving it in the hands of private citizens is based on a variation of a “gun-toting vigilante” argument, which you in fact made: You need your guns to defend yourself and your family against the violence of others. That is a soft version of vigilanteism, which is the belief that public safety should be maintained by private means.
You can declare yourself to have kicked my ass all you want. I’ll let my arguments, and the mobilization of reason and evidence which support them, speak for themselves.
Self defense (deadly force in my own home against an armed intruder) and vigilantism are not the same. At all.
Get real.
I’m surprised at how bad you are at this argument, Steve. You usually kick ass but this is horrible.
in defense of the innocent. I admit that I used it more broadly than it is commonly used, but that was a legitimate rhetorical tool. All such things are on a continuum: By shifting the line ever so slightly, I was able to illuminate a similarity which you would prefer to obscure. You are indeed arguing a position which is, by any definition, a close neighbor of vigilantism. I simply pointed that out.
vig?i?lan?te
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
-adjective
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.
It is legal per Colorado State Law for me to use deadly force on an armed intruder in my home. The definition of the word is to be outside stated law.
LB – 2
SH – 0
Dictionaries summarize conventional usage; they are not linguistic authorities. I made a very clear argument about the broad meaning of vigilantism, the conventional usage, and the proximity of the latter to usages in the former. You cited a generic and somewhat ambiguous dictionary definition (using a gun to shoot an intruder isn’t, in some sense, “taking the law into your own hands”? It isn’t “done violently and summarily, wihtout recourse to lawful procedures”? Oh, yes, since some forms of private violence are legal, it isn’t therefore, in any way related to vigilantism, even though it would suddenly become vigilantism through a minor change in the law defining when you can and can’t use private violence. Right, that really is a convincing demonstration of how completely unrelated your position is to vigilantism….).
And all of this self-serving and unfounded score-keeping by one of the contestants…. Does it mean anything other than that you’re trying desparately to win this contest by recourse to something other than the quality of your arguments, which you apparently recognize as unable to rise to the task? If your arguments were as good as you pretend they are, then your arbitrary proclamations would be redundant, and you would refrain from weakening your position by demonstrating your need for them.
Ok, this is it. I promise.
Ari, this is exactly what I said would happen.
I am against repealing the second amendment. Therefore I am:
1. Using my legally owned weapons as a psychological extension of my penis because I’m flawed mentally.
2. A vigilante who operates outside the law…er…uh…well, DON’T READ A DICTIONARY TO FIND THE MEANING OF A WORD, YOU SILLY RUBE!
3. More like the Hatfields and McCoys – one group of hillbillies from the past than I am like the other 500 million people over the years that have owned firearms in the US and not used them to kill innocents.
4. Unaware that owning a gun is pretty much the same thing as owning slaves, and I’m just too much of a “Neanderthal” to realize the difference.
This is why rational gun-owning folks on both sides of the aisle (not just the bitter, clingy ones on my side) grow weary of debating gun control with people that believe Oz is a real place where nobody is violent to anyone because nobody’s ever heard of an “assault weapon”.
Glad we had such a realistic argument, Steve.
You win, Steve – My eyes hurt from too many adjectives and witnessing typed masturbation at the expense of an attachment to reality.
I’ll still buy you a Guinness, don’t get me wrong.
.
and allow for the possibility that the dark core of evil inside each of us could be wished away,
then Steve starts to make a lot more sense.
.
don’t speak for me. I think humans are what they are, and will continue to be that. It is neither “evil” nor “good:” It is what it is. Our challenge is to work with that for our mutual and individual benefit. I absolutely do not beleive that our essential nature is particularly malleable (others do believe this, but I don’t), but rather believe that our social institutions provide a context for that nature which is either more functional or less, which leads to either more human welfare or less.
I don’t mind that you have no idea whatsoever what I’m talking about. But, given that fact, can’t you please stop paraphrasing your completely misguided interpretations of what I’m saying, and then imputing your versions to me? Someone might mistake what you attribute to me as something I actually said.
.
I thought I should help you out a little bit.
…..
Except, in this case, I wasn’t trying to speak for you.
For whatever reason, you do not grasp the fundamental essence of human nature.
Due at least in part to that blindness to the evil that lies in the hearts of men, you construct arguments that cannot withstand the light of day.
I am simply recommending to mature readers who know better that, if they would temporarily suspend their own comprehension of human nature,
and pretend like you that everyone is fundamentally good and would do no harm, if only those guns weren’t around to spur them on to harm their neighbors,
then your arguments can be understood.
.
Once again (you might want to repeat this to yourself a few times until it sinks in), my analyses start with the simplifying assumption that humans are motivated by selfish pursuit of their own individual self-interests. That is the basis of my analytical framework. How you depict that as some arbitrary belief that humans are fundamentally “good” is something I fail to comprehend.
Given the assumption of human self-interested behavior, the challenge is how to construct social institutions that create conditions such that the self-interested pursuits of the individual members of society lead to their collective benefit (and, thus, increases the success of their individual pursuit of their own interests).
Guns neither spur people toward good nor evil. They are tools, whose purpose is to propel projectiles which rip through flesh to destroy life. My analysis here has started with the assumption of self-interested individual human beings, has added in such factors as anger and poor judgment (which aren’t really essential to my arguments, but are relevant to them), has combined these considerations with the question of how to best frame access to that tool whose purpose is to destroy life, and has arrived at the answer that we are collectively best off when access to that tool of destruction is limited to the agents of our government assigned the task of maintaining public peace and safety.
That analysis bears no resemblance whatsoever to your religiously-steeped reduction of it.
and leave the rest.
Now that was funny…and well summarized. Good to see you back…if only for the moment.
Not that I agree with you…it’s just that, in this case, Steve’s superfluity of words makes for an odd argument…
It’s actually a mathematically precise argument made with non-mathematical symbols and some added descriptive noise.
the simple, rational argument that the reduction in the accessability of the predominant and least restrictive means of inflicting deadly force, that can be used at a distance without training or strength or planning or courage, is likely to lead to a reduction in the actual incidense of the use of deadly force, is the argument that is considered “odd,” even despite a global empirical correlation between gun restriction and lack of deadly violence reinforcing what is somewhat self-evident by mere logical deduction.
The arguments against this obvious truth, launched on the wings of outrage that anyone would dare suggest otherwise, almost universally held, or at least universally treated as reasonable, are a tribute to the supremacy of culturally ingrained assumptions, and their effortless ability to completely trump even the most simple and compelling exercise of reason.
you are making the argument that those who are stronger should have and keep any advantage over the weaker, and that the individual should be helpless against superior numbers. That those in such a situation should have no recourse for self-defense is the outrageous argument from my point of view.
It would be nice if it were unnecessary to provide for ones personal defense, but in the real world, men attack women to prove their superiority and gangs form so that they can prey on honest people who are alone. This is not because they are “courageous” as you would believe gun owners aren’t, but because they are the cowards who cannot abide society’s rules. But they are the ones you would empower if you had your way, and it’s unfortunate that you are blind to that truth.
…you need to re-read the whole debate, from the top…..start now
over private, and limiting the legitimate use of violence to the state, so that the state can both prevent the violence of the strong against the weak that you think I care so little about, and do so in a way which reduces or eliminates the ease with which such predation occurs when people have ready access to weapons.
In the real world, those states that have followed the model that I prefer are the states that have lower, not higher, rates of violent predation by some against others: Lower rates of violent crime, of rape, murder, and other forms of predation. Now, you might prefer your blind ideology to the conclusions of logic and the evidense of life, but that is precisely what I am saying is surreal.
Strictest laws in the country.
See my posts on local optima, the effect of local regulation in a nation awash with guns, and so on. I’ve already acknowledged this phenomenon, in fact, did so before you started posting on the topic, in my first response (or one of my first responses) on the Markey thread.
I am using “state” in its original meaning, as in a “sovereign state.” Today, the common form is the nation-state. I am not referring to the formerly semi-autonomous geographical administrative units of the United States, that, for historical reasons, go by that misnomer.
..when you’re done saying
“Uh…it’s an anomaly that the major cities with very strict firearm laws are bastions of..surprise…violent crime and murder – by gun!”
and I explained exactly how and why it happens. In fact, I used the same explanation used by Koppel from the Federalist Society. Oddly enough, I have agreed with the argument from your side on that particular issue, from beginning to end. I have never claimed it’s an anomaly. I have merely pointed out that it is a local and short term phenomenon that occurs only in a context of an already heavily armed society with easy movement of arms across state and city borders. Which is why when you do cross-national studies, you come up with exactly the opposite conclusion: Because there is less easy mobility of weapons across borders into those nations that have strict gun control policies.
Our difference is that I look at all the data, not just the data that supports my position, and acknowledge the data that doesn’t. If that were the end of the story, I would change my position (as I often have in the course of my life), because when the argument against me is better than the argument I am making, I simply switch to the better argument. I more interested in getting at the truth than in being right.
But sometimes the world is a complex and multilayered place. Sometimes things are not quite linear. A favorite example I have used before is that if I am driving north on the interstate, and want to go west, I have to turn east first to get onto the exit ramp. I’m trying to go west, but turn east! How absurd! Of course, it’s not absurd. It’s just a very simple example of non-linearity.
Similarly, Lo! in a society already awash with guns, with their sale, both legal and illegal, being rampant everywhere, with their transportation across city and state borders being a very simple affair, gun regulations in some enclave within that nation don’t necessarily have violence-reducing effects, and may even at times have violence-increasing effects. And that proves that in a society already awash with guns…. It doesn’t tell us much at all about a society that addresses the fundamental problem of being awash with guns. For that, we must turn to societies that actually have addressed that problem, and Lo! there rates of deadly violence are far lower than those in the United States.
Wake me up when you decide to be a little less selective about which bits of evidence you actually take into consideration, and to do a somewhat more honest and thorough analysis of the relationship between various gun regulation regimes at various levels of analysis, and rates of deadly violence.
Rather, it’s quite simple and clear.
You decided to go on an on to make a point that is incredibly simple. You have every right in the world to do that, but when you keep writing word upon word explaining the same straightforward point, you lose clarity. That is odd. It’s not the position that’s odd, as you seem to have drawn from what I wrote, it’s how you choose to argue it. There’s nothing surreal about that.
We essentially agree on the issue itself. But you’ve taken a simple position and turned it into a complicated one. How is that a good way to argue a philosophy or point of view you and LB seem to be debating?
In the non-blog world, as ashamed as I am to admit it, we tend to write similarly. 🙂 But when I read some of your posts, this one especially, I have to ask the same question I was asked my first week of grad school: Who the hell are you writing to!?
You’ve been through a ton of school, obviously, so I find it hard to believe you haven’t been asked the same question at some point. Who is your audience with this stuff? It’s not someone casually reading a blog or even one trying to have an engaging discussion on an interesting topic. It’s painfully academic and entrenched in an APSA journal or something equivalent. When you bring that into this setting, it’s odd.
Again, so we’re clear, there’s nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t serve your argument as well as you think it might.
I have attempted to respond to each one, rather than leave open the criticism that I didn’t respond to the challenges that were being made. I even responded to those that I didn’t consider relevant, stating that I didn’t consider them relevant, but then, to be agreeable, responded anyway.
I write as I write. I don’t spend time composing or editting these posts. I just let loose with a stream of consciousness on the topic being addressed, and try to cover all of the bases that have been brought into play.
I like to advocate for logic, evidence, experience, imagination, and compassion, all mobilized in a synergy in the enterprise of maximizing human welfare, now and in the future, here and elsewhere.
If the simple, straightforward argument had been enough, I wouldn’t have had to keep elaborating it to address the phantoms being generated by those who are convinced, despite that synergy of logic, evidence, experience, imagination, and compassion of which I spoke, that the simple and compelling argument is simply and compellingly wrong.
I find literary critique on a political blog tedious and irrelevant. This is how I think. This is how I write. This is what I have to say. Skip my posts if you like, or read them if you like. My audience is whoever is interested (which, apparently, is a thirty-something percent of the readers on this blog).
But debate like this is what we come here for, isn’t it? 🙂
So… Do you want to (or already) own any assault rifles? Can you make a case (outside of constitutional grounds) for private ownership?
One hunting rifle and a semi-auto SOCOM-2 M-14.
I have two justifications for having the SOCOM:
1. I have mountain land and bring my family up there often. There is no phone and thankfully, my mobile phone doesn’t work. It’s isolated, no neighbors to speak of. If anyone wanted to do me or my family harm, nobody would come to my rescue and the rifle is powerful at a distance so I could hopefully discourage them from coming closer. I also take it when sailing in the open sea.
2. The Katrina factor. If something catastrophic were to happen, I will get my family safely out of town no matter who wants to take my house, car or possessions. Immediately after the floods in NOLA, I had a friend who took turns sitting on the roofs of a development in town with his neighbors who lived there as well, firing shots over the heads of the armed mobs that would approach their neighborhood to loot the homes. True story.
I’ll accept point one. (My answer to point two is, can’t the same be accomplished with a semi-automatic rifle?) So accepting that, do you oppose things like licensing the ownership of your assault weapon? I’m thinking of you having to prove your competency, and perhaps even taking a psych test, in order to lawfully own your gun.
I don’t need or want a fully-automatic weapon.
A background check should be sufficient. I also dig the Colorado CCW law where the Sheriff can deny you if they give you written reason, even if it doesn’t involve an arrest or a conviction i.e. “We’ve been to your house 47 times in the last year”.
You’re also denied a CCW if you have any alcohol convictions (might be an ‘in the last 10 years thing).
but I still want the Guinness.
1) Yes, I honestly think that the gun culture is fueled in large part by a cultural machismo which associates such things with manliness, an association often reinforced in our popular culture.
2) The legal status is the matter in debate, so the fact that the weapon is currently legally owned does not add anything to the debate.
3) I used the famous feud of two Appalachian families because it was an example used by the economist Robert Frank in “Passions Beyond Reason” to illustrate how emotionally-charged mutual threats can serve as a mechanism for maintaining social order, but are also inclined to fail catastrophically when they do fail. That is precisely the dynamic we are talking about when we are pitting the argument of private ownership of guns as a threat against potential predators v. public monopoly on the legitimate use of violence as a guaranteer of public safety. I used an analogy, already used for the same purpose by a famous economist before me, to adress precisely the argument at hand.
4) Dictionaries are summaries of convention, not primary authorities. Language is a living thing, and words have various ranges of meaning. My point in using “vigilante” was not to get into a debate about the most commonly used meaning of the word, but to draw a relationship between what you are advocating and what few would defend. It is completely clear that vigilante refers to the private use of force in pursuit of public safety or justice. The most common use of the word limits it to using to avenge an attack that already happened. But the fact that this is just one step removed from the private use of force to maintain public safety pre-emptively is worth noting: Both involve the private use of force, rather than the government monopoly on force. There is a clear and salient relationship between the private use of force to protect oneself, and the private use of force to punish others. Both are expressions of a belief in the efficacy of reliance on the private use of force, rather than ceding that to a public authority in order to increase the general safety and security that such ceding promotes.
5) You know perfectly well that I never drew any direct comparison between owning a gun and owning slaves. I raised the issue of slaves in response to the argument that since private gun ownership is constitutional, there can be no argument levied against it. Historically, many things that have been constitutional have been immoral or dysfunctional. I raised the archetypical example to make that point. You are engaging in rhetorical smoke-blowing by implying that I compared slave ownership to gun ownership. Arguments are sometimes made by building a succession of points that, when fully assembled, lead inexorably to a given conclusion. Arguing against one of those points by falsely claiming that it was made in defense of a conlusion for which it was not being moblized is a form of deceit, not debate.
6) And, of course, those who disagree with you, who can refer to the realities of world history and cross-cultural comparison, who can cite economic theory and a variety of real-life anecdotal evidence in support of various aspects of his argument, live in “oz,” while those who simply hold a strong and popularly held opinion without much basis and without offering much real defense for it, live in the real world. To a tragic extent, you are exactly correct on that point: Reason and evidence are not the guiding forces in the “real world.” But I’m still willing to make the effort to raise their profile.
1. Do you think it’s possible that someone could have a good reason for owning firearms without it being linked to their penile psychology?
I have to say this is a tremendously elitist, almost caricatured view of why people make fun of elitist Democrats. The whole ‘bitter gun and religion clinger’ thing.
2. Tell that to a meth addict with a pistol in his pocket on the 16th street mall.
3. You used the Hatfields and McCoys because it symbolically helps your argument, truth be damned. Tow paramilitary families shooting each other in a time in our country’s history where there weren’t police there to stop it at the drop of a hat has zero to do with me filling out a background check and buying a pistol.
4. ZZZZZZZ. You were trying to make all gun owners out to be bloodthirsty vengeance-seekers, law or not. Just a question, what would you personally do if a guy with a gun kicked your door in at 3AM?
5. Yes, you did, and then you did it in you explanation of why you didn’t. It’s ok. Owning of another human, even if it was in our Constitution is in no way comparable to the right to bear arms in terms of anything other than their initial connection in the document. It’s a red herring you throw in to deflect my ass-kicking rationalization.
6. Yes, Steve. You very much live in your own Oz-like existence where man transcends his primal urge to survive through creative nannying.
If you get held up outside of Nallen’s next time (assuming I’m carrying which I never do if I’m having any alcohol) and the guy is holding a gun to your head, do you want me to save you or should I stand back and watch you use adverbs on the guy until he loves you?
Let me know so I can plan accordingly.
He orders and channels them through social institutions that don’t surrender the world to their whims.
Hatfields and McCoys, an anecdote used by an economist to discuss exactly this type of issue.
Levels of analysis error: There is a difference between what individuals want or how they react in a given instance, and what’s good for society over the long run.
How to define the legal structure, what the laws should be, is the issue in question: It is tautological to use the fact of the current status of the law as an argument to favor that such laws should be in place. One is descriptive, and one is normative. It is the law, but should it be?
I’m betting that there aren’t really that many people who, if they were completely honest with themselves, would dispute that America’s love affair with guns is in part motivated by a machismo element of our culture. It’s pretty damn obvious, elitist or not.
There are undoubtedly numerous exceptions on the individual level. I never implied otherwise. I recognize different levels of analysis, and that what might be a cultural factor isn’t necessary an explanation for every individual choice.
If your point is that Steve’s arguments are invalid because he can’t (or won’t, which is more likely in my view, in light of his claims of marksmanship which I take at face value) speak to the definitions of what is or is not an assault rifle, then no, I don’t see that point at all.
If you’re point is that you and Steve are at polar opposites on the issue, I do see that.
I’m somewhere in the middle here. I can’t define the characteristics of assault rifles – hell, put a gun in my hand and I’ll only be able to make the vaguest guesses about it’s caliber, and that based on the movies that I’ve seen. But I do know that assault rifles are designed for combat, as Dan points out, and I can think of no rational reason why, in light of their design and use, anyone other than a registered and licensed collector (who hopefully has passed a few psych tests) should own one.
So, I would say that I’m in favor of the ban. I’d rather that it be more comprehensive than less. I don’t see that as incompatible with the 2nd Amendment since all the amendments of the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
So, while my lack of expertise on weapons means you shouldn’t consult me about which weapons should be subject to the ban and which ones should not (for example, I had no idea about the M-1 til Dan posted about it), I will reject any suggestion that my opinion about the matter is necessarily too ignorant for it to count in this debate.
Unlike Steve, I neither support a total ban of all firearms nor believe that his vision of the future is one we’ll ever reach. But he’s spot on when he advocates comprehensive gun control (which does not mean no guns for anyone ever, and give up the ones you have while we’re at it) as being more effective then the patchwork series of regulations that are rendered moot by the open boundaries of our municipalities and states. Whether that’s good policy or not is almost entirely an emotional issue – either you like guns for their protection they offer or you hate them for the harm they cause, both views being quite demonstrable from real statistics, facts, and anecdotes. I say, let people buy their handguns, rifles, shotguns (although those are certainly closer to assault rifles in purpose than the first two types) and ammo, as is their right; but let’s be reasonable about how easy they are to obtain.
My point to you is that the legislation as it existed before does nothing to make anyone safer, because there are legal weapons that do the same thing as the banned ones.
And banning weapons only takes them out of the hands of legal owners.
I don’t disagree with your point, but I think “Assault Weapons Ban” just sounds so politically salivating that some can’t stay away from it, no matter how nonsensical and ineffective the law actually is.
Then you also get to see the true motives of its most ardent supporters, like Steve.
Like a lot of social issues, there are “true motives” that supporters of specific bills or policies have. Many, but not all, who oppose gay marriage also oppose gay rights across the board. Most who support any restriction on abortion are completely anti-abortion.
These are the battle lines that are drawn in the little wars over social issues.
I don’t have any problem with your belief – it’s wrong, but that is a debate to have.
But your not debating the point – the best you’ve done is insult gun owners with the insinuation that firearms ownership is an attempt to thwart a feeling of sexual inadequacy.
Exercising a constitutional right is not wrong, evil or stupid – decrying someone for doing so is.
The process we have set up as a country and as a society has debated and examined the 2nd amendment…and it has passed scrutiny and will be upheld.
It was also confirmed that the 2nd amendment can and will be regulated by governments at all levels. We can, as a county in Denver pass a law that restricts the ownership of certain firearms and ammunition. It also will protect and defend the right of lawful citizens to own all other firearms.
I don’t like the bunch of God’s Madmen that are showing up at soldier’s funerals and called their deaths God’s revenge. That doesn’t mean I get to toss out the 1st Amendment to fix it. It does mean I can pass a municipal ordinance (or state law) banning their stupidity a certain distance away.
not violating them. What happened to my first amendment right to say that I believe that the legality of private gun ownership is bad social policy, and that I believe that those who are committed to it are misguided? As for my response to LB, he was getting increasingly insulting, so I returned the favor. And, yes, I stand by the jist of that remark: I do indeed believe that the fascination with guns has a lot to do with issues of machismo. And my first amendment right permits me to say so.
…not just amending the law. Stick with one or the other.
You’re also stomping on my 1st amendment rights to refute your morphing arguments, and to stand up for my personal reputation when you state my exercising my rights are a mental quirk (at best) or a sexual deviance (at worst.)
Doing a faux-diagnosis of my id and ego is not a way to discuss or debate an issue. Usually, it’s done when you’re losing a debate, and you need to distract from the weakness of your logic.
The Constitution is the law of the land. Amending it, repealing an amendment, or, by means of the courts, changing an interpretation of a constitutional provision, are all changes in the law, no more and no less.
I’m not losing any debate here: LB used England as an example of proof that gun ownership prohibition does not reduce violent crime, conveniently overlooking the fact that the murder rate in America is 8.7 times what it is in England. Cross-national evidence suggests that effective, nation-wide gun prohibitions are correlated with low rates of deadly violence. Logic suggests that it could hardly be otherwise (If guns facilitate deadly violence, and the facilitation of deadly violence increases the rate of deadly violence, than the greater availability of guns must certainly inrease the rate of deadly violence).
The only thing I’m losing is my time, and the satisfaction I would gain by living in a more rational society more eager to implement the most rational and welfare-conducive social policies.
I have broken no law, and violated no right. Neither have you. This is a debate. LB started getting snarky, so I snarked back at him (not at you). I said nothing about ids and egos, or sexual deviance. Relax.
Is there a difference between violent crime rates and murder rates?
How do the cities in the US with the most stringent anti-gun laws stack up in terms of overall violent crime in comparison with other major US cities?
Try San Francisco, Washington D.C. and Chicago for starters.
In fact (you’re going to love this), there is some statistical evidence that shows that changes in gun regulations locally within the United States accomplish exactly what you would argue they should: A move to laxer regulation decreases violent crime, and to stricter regulation increases, in the short term (in the long term, the evidence switches back toward my position, such as in New York City, which effectivley used tightening gun control as part of a multifaced successful effort to reduce violent crime). In the Markey thread (in my very first post on the subject), I referred to that as the “local optima fallacy.” In the context of the current day United States, awash with guns, and with plenty of opportunities to legally purchase them, local regulations empower violent offenders to commit acts of violence with less concern that their victim is armed. When concealed carry permits are common place, violent crime is reduced by the fear that a victim might be packing heat.
But, as my Hatfields and McCoys, and international non-governance, analogies demonstrated, these methods, while functional to a point, are also guaranteed to fail disastrously from time to time.
The best regime is one which involves a well-checked and democratically controlled government imbued with a monopoly on the legitimate use of deadly force. That is the global optimum, rather than a local optimum that can be attained within a very sub-optimal general context.
I only delved into the issue of distinguishing assault rifles because LB challenged me to. I always maintained that it wasn’t necessary to my argument to do so. I have consistently maintained that the cross-national evidence and simple reason support the conclusion that effective gun regulation reduces rates of deadly violence, that effective gun regulation would have to be on a national scale, that regulating rounds is a practical manner for making the guns in circulation obsolete, and that the benefits of such regulation in public safety and welfare outstrip the costs to individuals who would be deprived the pleasure of owning weapons designed solely for the purpose of deadly violence. I have maintained that govenments are defined by having a monopoly on the legitimite use of deadly violence, and made a comparison between regimes in which no such monopoly existed, and those regimes in which it does. There’s nothing internally inconsistant or morphing about these integrated arguments.
Within the framework of any one or more constitutional amendments, good and bad stuff will happen, intended or not. Life sucks, as the Bodhisattva teaches.
The extreme of either absolutely banning or allowing some thing will not solve the problem, per para 1 above.
As stated, if someone purports a viewpoint that may be harmful or destructive, you don’t ban speech. You ban that speech which is harmful or destructive.
I can cite statistics on the “danger” of free speech as it relates to intelligence operations, false accusations on a person’s character and stock market manipulation. It is compelling and confirmable, and yet insufficient to justify the nullification of the 1st amendment, at least as far as I’m concerned.
Slavery should not be absolutely banned? Sexual abuse of children?
We have eliminated constitutional provisions before. There is no reason to assume that it is never good public policy to do so.
So we agree that some things should be absolutely banned. The question is whether private ownership of firearms is one of them. I’ve argued, using reason and evidence, that the answer is “yes.” You’re not convinced. I have no problem with that.
We do not outlaw free speech in response to its occasional (or frequent) utilization to do evil because free speech does much good. We don’t preserve and protect it just because it gives us the jollies: We preserve and protect it because it is good social policy to do so. It serves to foment innovation, to provide checks on the use of power (by reporting abuses), and, in general, it is one of the driving forces of human development. It also can be used to create and express beauty. These are all good reasons not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Conversely, guns are all bathwater. They are instruments designed to propel projectiles at high velocities, developed for the purpose of inflicting deadly violence on other creatures, often other human beings. They can be used beningnly, such as in the sport of target practice, but that is extremely incidental to their primary function, and does not provide any huge and indispensible public benefit in any case.
The right to free speech and the right to bear arms are two very different animals, with two very different sets of public policy considerations involved. Examining their particulars, rather than arguing as though they represent generic and immutable truths about “rights,” does not advance a deeper and more complete understanding of the issue.
What if, for example, we were discussing some ill-conceived but historically enshrined right to torture animals? Would that right be as defensible as the right to free speech just because it is a currently legally recognized right? Of course not.
I place the right to bear arms far closer (though far from identical) to the right to torture animals, in terms of its actual substance, than to the right to free speech.
.
I disagree.
I believe they discourage violent crime, particularly violent home invasions.
I believe they discourage local governments from comparable actions.
But I appreciate you putting into words the conceit that “Progressive” trends toward general immorality, state control and individual irresponsibility are an inevitable evolutionary improvement in the condition of man.
If left unstated, your core principles are much harder to disprove.
.
I will treat you very indelicately. I have a very well-developed and precisely formulated paradigm within which I analyze these kinds of issues, which views humans as essentially similar in all times and places, posing to us collectively the challenge of aligning our short term to our long term, and our more local to our more global, interests, while preserving the robustness of freedom to pursue and retain individual rewards for individual efforts (which, in fact, is in our collective interest to do). That is a far cry from what you reduced my position to, squeezing it into your sanctimonius little mindset.
One thing that I do find very offensive is being misquoted, or mis-paraphrased. You are welcome to speak for yourself, and say on your own behalf whatever you choose. But DO NOT speak for me! I will do that, thank you very much.
As for this particular subject, you can believe what you like, but you are choosing your belief in defiance of, rather than in accord with, what the evidence indicates, at least in regards to their correlation to public safety. Once again, the simple and irrefutable fact is that those socieities without private firearms ownership have enormously lower rates of deadly violence than those societies with private firearms ownership. No matter how many times you argue that guns increase safety, reality just doesn’t agree with you.
I’m one of those weirdos who believe the Constitution is living document, and the Founding Fathers displayed their brilliance in setting it up that way.
Of course I believe that there should be bans…but those bans must represent a small portion of an overall whole…just like sex between consenting adults of is legal, but sex between an adult and a child is not.
Under your proposal, we should ban all sex because there are some sexual deviants who engage in the unwholesome variety.
The right to free speech and the right to bear arms are EXACTLY the same animal, just occupying different spots. One was listed first, then next was listed second on the Constitution. Their order of presentation or have no bearing on their value or importance.
Both have endured challenges, debates and examinations in the court of law, and have persisted, more or less in their current form with sensible restrictions on both.
Slavery, the right to vote and many other important changes to the law of land have occurred in the meantime, demonstrating that wrongs can be righted under the existing system.
“are exactly the same,” and use their positions in the Bill of Rights and the fact that they have endured debates as the basis of your argument.
I discussed what they do and how they function, and demonstrated that they are not the same by actually analyzing the respective rights themselves, how they function, what their respective benefits and detriments are, their implications for social policy.
I prefer my approach. I’ll leave you to yours.
http://www.thedenverchannel.co…
Doesn’t sound as if it fits under “make my day.”
Here’s a poll:
The very, very long dialogue between LB and Steve has . . .
a. Increased Steve’s understanding of LB’s positions
b. Increased LB’s understanding of Steve’s positions
c. Increased the reader’s understanding of 2nd amendment and gun rights issues
d. None of the above
I’ll know we have progress in the never-ending debate when the NRA begins to participate meaningfully in discussion of gun safety issues (i.e. how to prevent accidental deaths from gunfire).
He wants to ban all private gun ownership in the U.S.
I oppose that.
Pretty clear, eh?
When I was a kid, my dad taught me gun safety. He told me that there are a few rules about handling a gun, and they made me both respect and understand the power that they have:
1. Always assume the gun is loaded. Even if there’s no magazine, there’s still probably a round in the chamber. Even if you know for a fact that the gun isn’t loaded, then just treat it as if it were.
2. Guns are not toys. They are to be used for their specific purposes, and nothing else. If you want to play around with a gun, then get a toy one or buy a video game.
3. Never, ever, ever, ever, point a gun at someone unless you mean to kill or wound them. Nothing could be less funny than pointing a gun at someone as a joke.
If people followed those rules, and made a better effort of keeping their guns out of the hands of their children, then you would see a dramatic decrease in accidental gun-related deaths.
And I don’t think anything I said is at odds with the NRA’s stance. If you want to talk trigger locks or some other nonsense, then that’s a different conversation, but the rules I listed virtually guarantee the safe use of firearms.
Who owns a gun that doesn’t know what you just wrote needs to turn it in.
I tell the folks I work with on shooting that guns have a miraculous ability to load themselves at any moment, so to always assume that you never point a gun at anything you’re not ready to destroy. No joking about it.
btw LB, it’s good to see you back! And, great job arguing with someone who’s attitude is basically:
He doesn’t like guns
Because he doesn’t like guns you shouldn’t have them.
Because you have them and won’t willingly give them up there is obviously something wrong with you.
Because there is something wrong with you, you shouldn’t have guns.
I have noticed that Steve likes to devolve into personal attacks when you stand up to him. It would be amusing to see him try that in a courtroom.
situation that involves negative externalities:
He doesn’t like convicted child molestors being allowed to teach in elementary schools,
Because he doesn’t like convicted child molestors being allowed to teach in elementary schools, you, a convicted child molestor shouldn’t be allowed to teach in an elementary school.
Because you (a convicted child molestor) do teach in an elementary school and aren’t willing to stop teaching in an elementary school there is obviously something wrong with you.
Because there is something wrong with you, you shouldn’t, as a convicted child molestor, be allowed to teach in elementary schools.
I don’t see any problem with the “attitude” you outlined, if it is recognized that the blank being filled in involves something that isn’t inherently violent in itself, but creates opportunities for violence, accidental or intentional, that are potentially destructive to others.
Now, here it comes, “Now you’re calling us child molestors!”
No, I’m demonstrating that the logical structure of your criticism of my argument depends on your assuming that there are no serious potential negative externalities to the right being discussed. It is fairly obvious that there are serious potential negative externalities in both the case of child molestors working with children, and the case of instruments of deadly force being highly accessible.
No personal attack: Just relentless logic.
Not so much, Yevrahnanny. (Hehehe).
That’s not really logic. That’s dense opinion. In my opinion.
…unintentionally, I’m sure
We’ve gone over most of his points.
That quote of his certainly disqualifies him from calling his own logic
‘relentless”, imo.
and either revise your opinion, or continue to be wrong. Whichever you prefer.
(It better be a 16 ounce Guinness).
Of your meandering, watered down posts trying to tell me how the poor unwashed need to be saved from themselves and that silly, antiquated Second Amendment, I’m going to drink a lot of something harder.
When should we go? I don’t want you to think I don’t love you or anything.
Sorry to have to put it off so long, but I’m leaving for DC on Wednesday, and won’t be downtown until Friday 4/3. If that’s a good day for you (around 5:00 or so), then we can meet at your favorite watering hole, or try some place new.
arguments for you to critique:
Aristotle once said “men” and “best.” And the title of one of his books was “logic!” “Men” and “best”? That’s not really logic!
Now, to the quote from me that’s not really logic, but just dense opinion: AK-47s are weapons designed to propel projectiles at high velocities into other people’s flesh. That is there purpose. The purpose of the law, on the other hand, is, in part, to prevent people from propelling projectiles at high velocities into other people’s flesh. You were trying to define the debate as requiring some specific argument why AK-47s, among all instruments designed to propel projectiles into other people’s flesh, should be singled out to be banned. I was arguing that since propelling projectiles into other people’s flesh is something the law is trying to keep from happening, that it is not necessary to come up with a reason why the instrument for doing that should be banned (the purpose of the law and of social institutions in general makes a ban on such instruments the logical default position, since their function is to do something that the law and social institutions are particularly designed to prevent from happening), but rather that one must come for a reason why, despite the fact that their purpose is to do something that the law is particularly designed to prevent from happening, they should not be banned.
That’s logic, my friend. Simple, compelling, and, yes, relentless. And I don’t need to invent a topsy-turvy score card to have made, and scored, my point.
If an actual neanderthal kicks my door in and has a spear, I’m going to propel all kinds of lead through his flesh.
I’m not going to cower and give him time to kill my family while I try to make him listen to me wax on about how unevolved he is in a mere 5000 words while we wait for the police to show up.
You can keep your version of logic when it comes to protecting my family.
Your act of pretending like you know better for others is very elitist and very laughable. You have been using a faux concern over “assault weapons” to scare people toward a total ban on private gun ownership.
It’s immensely satisfying to me that the Founders were so much smarter than you about this, neanderthals that they were.
Of course, in the absence of a functioning society, with everyone out for him or her self, who wouldn’t want to be armed to the teeth?
But the whole project of society, of civilization, is to overcome that condition by creating institutions which provide better (not perfect) guarantees of mutual safety than are provided by recourse to private means. That’s exactly why the Hatfield and McCoy analogy is so pertinent. It shows both the functionality of what your saying, and its ultimate inferiority to creating a state that centralizes the provision of public safety from mutual predation.
You surrender to an inferior social system. I strive for a superior one (as defined by how well it provides for human welfare, including safety from violent predation).
I find few signs of dystopia around me. I see people going to work, shopping, living their lives. Society seems to be functioning, not perfectly, just not in a way you approve of.
You think that the presence of firearms in the hands of individuals rather than solely with the state is a problem. I don’t, and the unwillingness of the elected class to move in your direction seems to indicate I’m not in the minority on this.
I have to ask you this, In your “superior” society, outside of removing firearms from the law abiding citizens, what would you change to prevent predators from attacking those you left otherwise helpless? How would you keep them away from the rest of us? Please avoid sweeping generalities and give us specific changes you would make.
I didn’t mean that we currently live in the absence of a functioning, but that the desire to be armed is both a response to and a contributing factor to the perception and reality of not being enough of a functioning society.
And, once again, I have not had to refer to any hypothetical society to point to examples of those who do not permit private ownership of firearms, and, perhaps in part as a result, have far lower rates of violent crime (particularly deadly violent crime) than we have. They exist in abundance. Of all developed nations, we have both the laxest gun regulation, and the highest rates of violent crime. By far. If you want an answer to the question of how, in precise detail, it can be accomplished, simply examine their social systems.
Of course, we have the added challenge of getting from here to there. I have addressed every aspect of the issue in my posts on this thread. I have discussed how to make guns in circulation obsolete, how armed the police should be, all in precise detail, no sweeping generalities involved.
The elected class responds to the electorate, because the want to get re-elected. I have repeated many times that the problem is part of complex set of interrelated cultural characteristics that adore and escalate violence in America. We are a violent society. That is a statistical fact, in comparison to other societies similarly developed in other ways. In terms of how we conceptualize and deal with violence, we are, in many ways, an underdeveloped society. The elected class can’t change that, though those with courage can carefully and intelligently work toward its gradual improvement. Some do.
Though the post to which I am responding is perfectly cordial (thank you for that), I do not, from the entirety of your posts. believe that you’re really interested in anything I have to say, nor in what reason and evidence suggest, but rather are hoping to find opportunities to score points and bring me down. I have nothing to gain by continuing to participate in such an exchange. It does not matter (or, if you prefer, would not matter) how well-reasoned and well-supported my arguments are. You are responding neither to the actual arguments I am making, nor with actual arguments in return. The sole purpose of your (and SSG’s) posts is to find some way to diminish me personally. I hope that has given you some satisfaction, but it does nothing for me.
There is no question you have raised or will raise that I have not already responded to. If you are interested in the answers to any question or challenge you wish to pose to me on this matter, read my posts above, and you will find them. If you are interested in continuing to express your intense dislike for me, please continue to do so until you feel fully satiated.
In the first place, are ALL children being educated about gun safety? I don’t think it’s part of the usual school curriculum (not on the CSAP, I’m guessing). So you have millions of kids not educated about gun safety with access to guns, because some adult gun owners are irresponsible in the storage of guns.
Also, did anyone comment on my link to a gun story of today, from Colorado Springs? I don’t know story details yet but it’s not only not a “make my day” gun story, but it’s also not a gun safety story. It very well might be a story about a legitimate gun owner who used his gun in a not so legitimate way.
So, if we start with the premise that we are not likely to ban gun ownership in this country, the question is, what needs to happen to improve gun safety and reduce injuries/deaths. Mandatory gun safety programs for children and adults? Maybe. More consistent penalties for inappropriate use of guns (see today’s story)? Probably.
I have said – for years – that the NRA is the most appropriate organization to assist with broader gun safety programs, and more appropriate laws. It would be a major milestone if the NRA would take a leadership role on these issues.
We have no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the shooting other than a tiny blurb online. It’s possible that the shooting was justified under State law, but possible it’s not as well.
that shit happens. Leaving instruments in circulation that are sometimes, inevitably, by fools unlike you, left unlocked, loaded, or simply put in the hands of inexperienced kids by adults with poor judgment, and that as a consequence of these inevitable errors of judgment make the shit that happens likely to cause more death and suffering than the shit that happens would otherwise cause, is an argument in favor of reducing the extent to which such instruments are put into circulation.
Now, just to be a mensch, and to make sure that I’m still in line to get that Guinness, let’s allow that the fact that such an argument exists does not make it dispositive: There may be enough countervailing arguments, carrying enough force, that they would outweigh the argument that I have just outlined above. But to deny the legitimacy of that argument outlined above, only as one argument to be placed on the scales, is simply indefensible. The fact is that every time a kid takes a fire-arm into a school and kills a bunch of fellow student, and every time a teen-age girl hiding in the closet to surprise her parents is accidentally shot to death by her father who mistook her for an intruder, and every time that a foreign exchange student who didn’t understand on Halloween night that the homeowner was warning him to get off his property and shoots him to death when he fails to do so, and every time the vice president of the united states accidentally shoots his hunting partner in the ass…, every time one of those things happens (well, except for the last one), it is an argument for reducing the availability of firearms, if such can be accomplished. Now, the arguments against that conclusion may be weightier, but they only (hypothetically) outweigh the argument just outlined, they don’t erase it from existance.
My personal belief, which I think is a reasonable one, is that the arguments on the other side don’t outweigh the irrefutable argument that I just outlined, and that the obviousness of the fact that they don’t forces gun advocates to pretend by all sorts of contortions that the argument against private gun ownership just doesn’t exist, or is just based on smoke and mirrors. The problem, you say, isn’t the gun, but the person who left it loaded and unlocked, or the person who used it too readily, or the person who gave it to a kid too young with too little instruction. But we all know that shit happens. We all know that such people exist, and, in some cases, some of them may not be as different from you as you’d like to believe.
So, since we all know that shit happens, it’s generally a good idea not to keep throwing it at the fan.
Should law enforcement be allowed to carry guns? I don’t know the exact statistics or anything, but there are lots of cases where officers shoot and kill suspects who end up not having done anything wrong.
Using your utilitarian argument above, wouldn’t eliminating their possession of guns also lessen accidental shootings? It’s not just the guy who thinks that someone is breaking into his house, but it’s just a neighbor who locked himself out. There’s also incidents like the 41 shots guy in NYC, and the no-knock raid that killed Ismael Mena in 1999.
…and I don’t claim to be speaking for Steve, who may come along and shatter my calm later.
but, a purpose is served by having public officers carry guns…and it would take some serious evidence of substantial “accidental shootings” to counterbalance this salutary purpose
See my post below, in answer to RSB, which said the same thing you just said in ten times as many words. 🙂
As you undoubtedly know, the Brits for a long time armed their cops on the beat with just billy clubs. Up until too many weapons from abroad, and too much of a general culture of violence, crept into the United Kingdom, this worked quite well.
I would never argue that there is any system which is error-free. I would never argue, for instance, that we cannot tolerate a system of justice which occasionally imprisons innocent people, because any system of justice will occasionally imprison innocent people, and having some system of justice is indispensible (as an aside, I think we could do a lot better on that score in this country, and even, at the same time, put more guilty people in prison. There are some simply indefensible flaws in our current system).
So the question isn’t “what system results in no innocent people being victims of gun violence,” or even “what system results in the lowest number of innocent people being victims of gun violence,” but, more complexly, “what system maximizes utility?” We would have to, probably heuristically, weigh out a variety of considerations, a variety of things valued to be balanced, and come up with out best solution. Of course, in the real world, the political process does not involve some synoptic calculation of what best serves the public interest, but rather a sublimated street brawl that results in some set of compromises of some sort or another.
So, yes, eliminating the possession of firearms by cops would lesson the shootings of innocent people by cops. But would it raise the rates of shootings by crooks and predators? Certainly. If there were no guns in society, at all, then I would be in favor of disarming cops as well, and giving them weapons equal to or just slightly better than the best weapons otherwise in circulation. But while there are guns in circulation, and since my argument is that I want to try to limit the use of violent means to our collective government agents, I would not advocate disarming the police, because I think that a complete utilitarian argument would not support doing so.
Oh…damn. My head hurts.
Why did you guys got into overtime on this? And why did so many of you jump into the pool with us?
If nothing else, this demonstrates the Star Power of LB and SH to attract a crowd when they start duking it out.
CoPols, why don’t you charge admission for this?
one which I had hoped to use to get some serious work done.
One answer to someone’s question about who my audience is (another literary criticism…), is, me. The one collateral benefit I get from responding at length to every argument, and not just letting some go, is that, like the monkey at the typewriter typing for all eternity, a few little gems get spit out.
I believe my position here wholeheartedly, but I am starting to consider the political necessity of seeking more moderate compromises with the gun culture. There’s just no point in arguing for something that’s politically out of reach, unless I can put it closer to being in reach by means of those arguments.
Ah, geez – now you do just sound like an Academic with a spiked stick up your butt.
I give a shit for the scholastic rules of debate that call for formal rules and 20-dollar words. This was a lively and intense debate about a public policy that most of us have intense passion for.
The fact that it didn’t go exactly your way or to your standards doesn’t diminish it’s value.
And yes, LB did kick your ass…
You have a lovely day, too.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of “how it went,” but that’s fine.
I’m glad to see that people so readily and deeply angered by those who disagree with them are vehement about the right to bear arms. That’s very reassuring.
My post above was meant to be friendly olive-branch after the “lively and intense debate” about which we all hold passionate opinions. It was received with scorn and belligerence.
This debate was a draw. Steve brought up many good points that LB and you ignored or dismissed out of hand. Steve did the same with some of your and LB’s good points, too. And both sides committed their fair share of debate fouls. All in a day’s work on the blogs.
LB kicked his ass? No, afraid not.
what points didn’t I respond to? I agreed with the “local optima” effect of reduced regulations in gun-saturated America (and, in fact, brought it up on the Markey thread before LB, SSG, or Cologeek even entered the discussion). I addressed the trade-offs involved in recourse to private rather than public maintenance of personal security, and framed it in a particular form of analysis. If there’s some good (or bad) point I didn’t respond to, I honestly don’t know what it was.
I’m convinced that, if the goal is to create a safer society with less violent crime, then logic and evidence are absolutely compelling that the “global optimum” (ie, best possible) solution involves the elimination of private ownership of firearms. I don’t consider that an arbitrary opinion, but rather an inescapable conclusion following from logic applied to evidence.
One of the best arguments to be made by my opponents involves the difficulty of getting from here to there. That wasn’t brought up often or forcefully, but I addressed it anyway: I talked about the method of controlling bullets to make guns already in circulation obsolete, and addressed the issue of the black market for bullets that would inevitably arise. I also admitted that there may be costs in the present involved in arriving at a future that is better than a surrender to maintaining the peace by means of an armed populace.
Now, perhaps there’s an argument to be made that there are considerations more important involved in this question than the long-term minimization of violence, and, due to those considerations, human welfare in the United States is maximized by preserving our gun ownership rights. If that argument was made, I didn’t notice it. Nor do I believe it is an argument which would have prevailed had it been made.
I don’t mean to insult anyone when I say that I don’t believe the gun-culture advocates have a reasonable leg to stand on, but rather benefit from a deeply-ingrained cultural assumption (or set of assumptions), that puts the issue out of the reach of reason. And I’m a bit stunned, in the wake of this exchange, by to what an enormous extent that is the case.
I’d like to apologize to everyone involved for anything I said that appeared personally insulting or “holier than thou.” I don’t think that’s who I really am, but maybe that’s what comes across in this medium of communication. At a certain point, early in the exchange, I simply felt pummelled from all sides, and simultaneously knew and know (whether rightly or wrongly is something others can decide for themselves) that reason and evidence are unambiguous on this matter. That’s an uncomfortable position to be in.
In a way, I guess this is my “pro-life” position, both literally and figuratively. We are a violent society. That’s simply a fact, one which is well born out by the statistics. I very strongly believe that it is one of our most pressing responsibilities to try to become a less violent society. It is clearly an attainable goal, because others have attained it. In fact, we stand alone among developed nations in how poorly we have managed to address the issue of violence.
The gun culture is not the only nor the causal element in this endemic violence of ours, but it is one thread in the tapestry, a tapestry I would like to see us dedicate ourselves to unravelling and reweaving. To do so, we have to pull on those threads that we can.
I will continue to argue passionately for this agenda. I will hope that an increasing number of people will see the wisdom of it. But I will strive with everyone who wants to, gun advocate or opponent, to continue to create a more peaceful, more humane, more eddifying and enriching and joyful society, one in which we spend our lives exploring life’s wonders, and do our best to minimize those dynamics which intrude upon our ability to do so.
Realism and idealism are not incompatable: We must recognize reality, in order constantly to improve it.
It’s not a counter-argument that I typically encounter so I kind of forgot about it. So I will now say that you did answer their points. Sorry about that.
Even a neutral voice was a welcome relief! Thanks to Jambalaya, too, for throwing in a little moral support. That was just a grueling exchange!
I say that with love and a smile… But come on! Are you saying that arguing over unions is any different? Just admit that you don’t want to talk about it.
that Bernie Madoff belonged to?
Is there really a difference between the Democrat Party and Labor Unions?
Disclaimer: I will continue to incorrectly call it the Democrat Party until Card Check is abandoned. Yes, Pols, it effectively eliminates the secret ballot – in fact, that is the complete intention and purpose of EFCA.
It requires secret ballot vote if more than 30% of the workers want it. As is, workers have to publicly sign on to a request for an election to form a union so they really don’t have any secrecy to lose here.
Plenty of employers just make clear that any talk of organizing will result in firing much less having your name appear as one of those requesting an election. While this is supposed to be illegal, it’s almost impossible for a fired worker to prove it was because they were involved with trying to organize a union.
All card check does is even the playing field to make sure workers CAN organize without threat of losing their jobs. It doesn’t give them less secrecy or take away the right to a secret ballot election.
And nice to see you here again LB, you old right wing troglodyte, you.
Yes, it does.
It gives Unions the reason to come to private homes and “ask” for a signature that everyone can see instead of a vote.
There is no other reason for EFCA than to effectively get rid of secret ballots.
Unions like to call it “leveling the playing field”.
Forget coming to the house, we’ll have checkin parties at work, in the break room, on arrival at the J.O.B. Fuckit, we’ll start in school so that we are graduatin’ SEIU members.
We all think EFCA is about Card Check, really there is more, so much more as pointed out by the Master of Destruction, Jamie S. Gorelick. She and her former employee Michael Bennet know that if they can push the cloture vote through they’ll be able to deal Union Bosses two other factors, while telling the douche bags at the Chamber to STFU and removing Card Check.
Glad you asked…because the brilliant business coalitions just don’t get it.
You simply have your facts wrong
First, either way, management and organizers can both exert a certain amount of pressure but only management can fire you so right now management has much more power to intimidate. The idea that the present system doesn’t involve opportunities for pressure and intimidation is ridiculous on its face.
Workers already have to publicly sign a card asking to form union and must wait while management gets around to scheduling a secret ballot election so, with or without this legislation, the process of asking to form a union does not involve secrecy. Once again, in the meantime, which management has many means of prolonging, threats are routinely made, from threats to fire particular workers to threats of wholesale firing or that the business or particular unit will fold. Walmart, for instance, employs all of the above all the time.
A minority, 30% of workers can still demand the extra step of a secret ballot election under the proposed legislation. So there is no loss of the right to a secret ballot election. The leg busting days of union organization are long gone and it’s hard to believe that not even 30% Colorado workers in a given shop will have the guts to resist subtler forms of pressure if they really are set on a secret ballot election.
As it is now employers have the far more power to intimidate and union bust than any union organizer will ever have to force unions on reluctant workers under this bill.
Those are the facts. Look it up.
Of moving away from any secret ballot?
You are bound and determined to believe that this somehow takes away the right to a secret ballot and don’t care to be confused with facts.
You clearly prefer to have unlimited opportunity for management to harass, pressure, threaten and fire workers because you are anti-union. As an opponent of unions, it’s no surprise that you prefer the present system in which those who want to form a union must go public in a manner that gives management maximum opportunity to engage in union busting. I get it.
By the way, LB, you’ve been spending a lot of time here today. Getting sucked back in?
I believe this is Spring Break week for the public schools. We’ll see a lot of LB this week.
It leaves the right to a secret ballot in the language, but the intent of EFCA is to eliminate it as a method. It’s the base purpose of the legislation.
It’s like having the right to punch yourself in the balls.
But what the Unions will deal away is Card Check if they can get sections 3 and 4 of S.560. They’ll never say it, but that is what they are prepared to give away to get this bitch to Obama’s desk.
It is the perfect out for people like Bennet too; they have had faux business organizations screaming at them about the secret ballot. When they strip it out they can claim victory to the faux business associations.
Mark my words Bennet will vote to discuss card check then try to strip the card check portion out of the bill with Udall and others. The other upside [and it is HUGE] he gets with a cloture vote on EFCA is cover with the union bosses.
Tim Geithner, taxpayer!
I rest my case.
so long as you continue referring to our ledership as “Speaker Pelosi” and “Majority Leader” and yours as “Minority Leader”….
…for the next 22 months.
I really dig your willingness to argue against EFCA. I equate it to me arguing for gay marriage against my party. Good stuff.
not being easily pigeonholed!
That actually might be a good Diary topic:
What issued do you differ from your party on or: What issues do you think your party seriously has their head up their ass on?
I have a few….
Whenever you refer to the Democrat [sic] Party I’ll know you are just being petty. I’ll understand that this is just about the only tool left in your toolbox. I’ll sympathize with your frustration and your powerlessness. I’ll offer a shoulder for you to cry upon. I’ll patiently listen to your tales of woe about the lack of principles and ideas and solutions being offered by that other party.
So go for it, LB. Be as petty as you need to be. Don’t hold back.
😉
It’s impossible for you union folks to adequately explain to anyone how any process that involves no secret ballot where one previously existed is a good idea in a democracy.
OK, so now I am a “union folk.” Whatever the hell that means.
You are rusty, LB. You toss out some red meat (your words) with a lame attempt to smear unions because one union member stole wallets.
I point out that at least one person who is not a union member stole billions from many people. This was just to point out that whether or not a person is a union member does not determine whether or not they might do illegal things.
You resort to petty name calling and I called you on it. If that means I am a “stinker” in your eyes, well the loss is yours. Now you try to stereotype me as “union folk.” Why, so you can more easily dismiss anything I say?
Hell, this isn’t worth it. There is nothing beneficial to come from attempting to argue against your illogical bent today. You’re on a tear. Have fun. FU
I know it’s not representative of union members any more than members of society. It’s just embarrassing as hell that this moron was the go-to guy for PR during the Iowa campaign for the SEIU.
Also, you’re currently writing and reading a blog whose purpose is to publicize every misstep or mishap that is created by or happens to anyone who might have an R after their name. Which is fine, but it’s just really fun to stick one up your ass every now and then.
What was the name calling? When I used “Democrat”?
Maybe you should get your union bosses [sorry, it’s just too funny when Libertad uses that one in EVERY POST] to get some decaf instead of regular for the meeting hall…
If I’m on a tear it’s because I’m right, and there are many Dems on this site that agree with me regarding EFCA.
…and I have to point out this worthy institution, esp the important artifacts it has collected:
http://www.nationalinfantryfou…
To paraphrase Mr Lincoln – should we be sending a case of what GEN Grant drinks to all the Generals in Afghanistan?
Looks like Sam Cassidy — the best-known candidate to fill in HD3 — is not just a guy with a great resume, it looks like he’s embracing the new media.
He started a blog at:
http://CassidyForColorado.com/
According to a huffpost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
I thought he was a shoo-in for Surgeon General?
That was weeks ago, geek. The reality-based community has moved on.
start planning you trip for SXSW next year. 10 days of basic awesomeness not to be missed. Granted, it means you have to go to Texas…something to be avoided at all costs…but Austin really isn’t Texasish so it works out. 🙂
…often say “Better’n Texas!” It’s an island of blue in a sea of red.
I wonder why…….NOT! Very high education levels equate to liberal beliefs.
Did you see Jane’s? Did you see a mostly naked man with too much (or little, depending on what you like and your personal level of modesty) body paint on?
Yeah, I was there…and actually could have seen JA. But, noooo…we had to see Aqualung… Absolutely HAAAAD TOOOOO!!! At least that was the oh-so-reasoned argument my girlfriend made…
I can’t say I recall a specific mostly naked painted man…then again, anything that happened after about 6pm any given evening is pretty hazy… 🙂
That’s just awful.
Don’t worry about the haze, I’m sure he had it too. Otherwise, you know, clothes.
apologizes for getting married.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
If not for her fabulous hair, I would accuse her of insincerity.
Mark Ferrandino’s bill to allow two adults to enter into beneficiary agreements cleared the state Senate this morning. All Dems plus the two RINOs (Al White and Ken Kester) voted for H.B. 1260.
http://www.denverpost.com/brea…
..Ferrandino and those who voted for his little ol’bill!
Good, sound policy. We are getting closer to where we should be. One of these days our local, state and federal laws will all support the rights of everyone.
Distracted by LB. Don’t be fools. There is so much more important work to do.
I hope you’re satisfied.
Pig/Dance theorem is now completely QED.
I’m plenty satisfied… This argument has been the liveliest thread at Pols in a long time, all thanks to you and Steve.
I’d say you’re every bit as stubborn on this issue as Steve, too.
If angry indignation in support of a popular cultural assumption devoid of logic and refuted by evidence, in opposition to the consistently reasonable, empirically supported, but unpopular (and thus easily ganged up on) position, is what constitutes “kicking ass,” then you definitely kicked mine! Otherwise….
Was it simply greed, or is that too simple a scapegoat? Perhaps it’s because those who know the inside out of the financial markets world, understand that the drivers of the economy (surely eneregy is one of them!) are undergoing a tectonic shift in the near future. Surely there are tectonic shifts accuring! Why not take what you can when you can?
http://kuwaittimes.net/read_ne…
LB is a simpleton. He has his issues, and will, in his own simplistic fashion, pound his drum beat.
It’s time for some deep introspection.
On the gun issue, I was raised surrounded by guns. They were safely used for recreation and to put food on the table. There was no fear of our neighbors.
That said, my .410 is loaded for the simpletons of the world who come to my door attempting to impose their stupid fallacies on my family.
For those that still have some extra bucks – http://www.thedailybeast.com/b…
But I don’t, so I won’t. However, having read the LB/SH debates above until my brain hurt and my eyes started to bleed, I have a question for both of our headliners and all the supporting cast:
Have you ever had to repel a home invader?
I’ve never owned or shot a gun, but I don’t give a shit if somebody else does. However, I can’t figure out why everybody is so damned scared of home invaders because in my 55 years on Earth I’ve never even known anybody whose home was invaded by miscreants. Sure, I’ve read about such events in the papers, but I’ve read about a lot of things in the paper that are scary, and that’s never caused me to want a gun.
You can think of a firearm as insurance against intruders. No one wants to ever use any insurance they have because it means something bad happened. Admittedly it’s not an exact comparison, but it is how I think of it for myself. Most people will never have to use their insurance policy, but a lot of people pay the premiums anyways just in case.
That is, if your children could rummage through some drawers, find your insurance policy and kill someone with it. Happens a lot more often than “home invasions,” which are a lurid creation of TV news.
people kill people.
but I recall a home invasion recently (last year, maybe the one before) that held up traffic off of Santa Fe and C470. A guy broke in, the owner shot him and was guilty of nothing.
Also, here in the DU sort of area, there have been a rash of break-ins, several when people were home. They started as just robberies, but now appear to be targeting women. Probably a new guy started invading. At least one has his own gun. I’d source, but they’ve gone out of their way to keep it quiet. A brief article, http://www.denverpost.com/news…
So not like whatsitcalled, Clockwork Orange? stuff, but serious business.
Or so they said. They lived in the basement apt of our six-unit building and were dealing drugs (probably just pot). I could tell by the way they behaved and the way total strangers would show up at odd hours and leave within minutes. Anyway, they were robbed and one of them was beat up. They called it “home invasion,” but they had also let some real gang bangers hang out there just a few days earlier. Hmmm…. Methinks they were not just randomly targeted.
That’s the closest I’ve been to a home invasion. But I don’t think that’s entirely all that LB and others have in mind when they say they want guns, even assault rifles, for home defense.
I’m not saying it’s likely, but if something catastrophic did happen, I would want a gun. That’s actually the first thing I’d want besides food, water and first aid.
I know I end up sounding like the Michigan Militia or something, but I don’t think it’s that bad for everyday citizens to know how to shoot a gun.
Why do people learn Karate, or any other martial art? Many masters would tell you they would be happy to never use their knowledge to hurt anyone. I own a gun so that I don’t need to use it. Does that even make sense? I feel like I’m not getting my point across clearly enough.
This is a really interesting thread though. Best one in a long time.
the importance of looking at things on more than one level of analysis. What’s good and rational for individuals is often bad and disfunctional for their society and so, in the long run, actually bad for individuals as well. There is no debating the logic that having a gun serves individual interests. If a person is careful, and uses good judgment, as a general rule, having a gun is advantageous (though even careful people with good judgment have been known to kill a loved one by mistake, such as the Texas homeowner who accidentally shot his teenage daughter when, in the course of prank she was playing, he mistook her for an intruder). But the main point is that it is often the case that what serves individuals does not serve society, and so ends up biting individuals in the ass in the long run. I think that it is undeniable that far more innocent people, often children, die as a result of our gun ownership policies than would die as a result of stricter regulations or an outright ban. And in the case of that post-holocaust society you mentioned, I’d much rather live in a place where guns were almost non-existant than a place where people were armed in preparation for just such a situation….
If I thought it was realistic that you could destroy all firearms and ammunition, then I’d probably agree with you.
I think you’d have a much better chance destroying all the nuclear weapons, as to avoid the holocaust in the first place. 🙂
but, the fact remains, that there are countries that experience far less deadly violence than we do, so the hypothetical goal clearly is a possibility in the world of today. Given that fact, and given the importance of getting from here to there, I am strongly in favor of confronting the challenge that has been identified, rather than surrendering to its difficulty.
Destroying ammunition isn’t necessary: It is destroyed when used, and so success in sharply curtailing its availability would have a huge effect on the availability of firearms as functioning weapons.