Bang, Bang, Yer Dead!

[Seth]

No, you're AVOIDING problems by carrying a gun. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that crime only happens in East Knoxville, which is wrong to begin with. You also fail to understand that merely carrying a concealed weapon doesn't mean you will ever have to use it, or will ever want to. But it's just like fire insurance or a fire extinguisher, you have that because there's an unlikely chance your house will burn down or your car will catch on fire, but the consequences of that happening, no matter how remote, are so significant that it's a reasonable assessment of risk to carry insurance and have an extinguisher.

A concealed handgun is absolutely no different. I'm very, very unlikely to get into trouble where my gun will be needed, partly BECAUSE I carry a gun and therefore pay closer attention to my tactical situation than most people and therefore tend to avoid dicey situations before they get out of control, but I carry it anyway, and have needed it on several occasions, which vindicates my decision to be prepared.

You're not even reading what I'm writing.

Yes, I am. You wrote:

What do you think my point was? If you're in a place like North Knoxville and still carry a gun as if you were on the East Side, you've got problems. But if you live in North Knoxville need to go to somewhere like Austin East, it makes perfect sense to pack. What's the difficulty?

My point is that crime is not restricted to East Knoxville or Austin East, and that it occurs in North Knoxville too. Also, people who live in North Knoxville "need" to carry all the time because they never know when they might need to venture to East Knoxville.

Carrying a gun is never a "problem." The only problem is when and if you MISUSE that gun. Trying to say that North Knoxvillians don't need to carry guns "as if you were on the East side" is ignoring the realities of life and it's making a ridiculous assumption that you, or government is qualified to determine what someone's "need" to carry is based merely on where they happen to own a home.

As we saw from the Martin/Zimmerman incident, criminals come to gated communities too.

I live in a very peaceful small community that's had one murder in the last 50 years, but that doesn't mean I don't "need" to carry my gun.

[Wumbologist]

I really oppose a mental health check for firearm ownership.

Evaluator: Do you want to own a gun

Applicant: Yes, that's why I'm here.

Evaluator: ZOMG!!! He's crazy!!! Don't let this person have a gun!!!!!

Applicant is being interviewed for the very reason that s/he wants to own a firearm. That would not be a disqualifying criterion.

You fail to understand the point. If the government has the authority to demand a "mental evaluation" of an otherwise law-abiding citizen prior to granting them permission to own a gun, the government WILL abuse that authority by, for example, defining the desire to own a gun as a mental illness sufficient to deny the permit.

This is EXACTLY what the left-wing medical community is lobbying for. They want to declare "gun violence" a "public health emergency" that will give them the power to ban and confiscate guns based on THEIR assessment that owning, or wanting to own a gun is "pathological."

This is why the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not permission granted by the government. Since it's a right, one is free to exercise it as one chooses unless and until one does so in a manner contrary to the law or public safety, at which point that right, like all rights, may be reasonably regulated.

Mere possession of a firearm, or even the carrying of one in public, is not automatically a danger to the public. It's what you DO WITH the firearm that determines whether or not the government has authority to regulate that possession.

I hate to say it, but while I don't disagree with you in principle, FBM, I feel Seth is right on the reality of it. I see it in action here in Massachusetts, where we have "may issue" licensing laws and they are abused. In Boston, you CANNOT get a license to carry unless you are prepared to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and wait years. Some towns will freely issue licenses to a person who passes background checks, others will not, because they see issuing licenses or not as a privilege that they can deal out on their own prerogative. I wouldn't mind the system MA uses for licensing... IF it was used fairly, and everyone who meets the qualifications were issued a license as it should be. I think the unfortunate problem with restrictions like those, or like the idea of a mental health check, is the potential for abuse. I'd be all for a system of reasonable mental health checks, if I were convinced that it would be done in a fair and impartial manner and not susceptible to being morphed into a tool for arbitrarily denying permits to perfectly good folks.

[mozg]

I have zero interest in restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Unless of course those people who are law-abiding, who have committed no crime, have voluntarily sought medical treatment for a mental health issue. You've already said you want to restrict their rights.

Yet, in the current system(s), there seem to be too many people with criminal intent who are getting their hands on guns legally. This needs to stop.

And I disagree with any effort at all to curtail any person's rights because of what they might do according to some government employee somewhere.

But waaaayy before that, we need to focus on getting illegally acquired firearms out of the hands of active criminals. Until that happens, I wouldn't spend much time pushing for tighter restrictions on legal ownership. Criminals first. Potential criminals a distant second.

I think focusing on crime and criminals is the only thing that is ever going to be effective at crime control. Punishing people who have broken the law and harmed other people and keeping them segregated from society is a good thing. Restricting the liberty of 'potential criminals' a la Minority Report is something that I hope to never, ever see happen in the United States. I really don't believe for a second that some goal of pre-crime restriction of rights is laudable, noble, worthwhile or beneficial at all. It's not 'a distant second' on my list.

It's something to be avoided entirely.

[FBM]

None of you are even reading what I've written at face value. Each of you is super-imposing his own local issues and slanted political agendas over what I have written and are running off with strawman arguments and slippery slope appeals. SNAFU. So what. Another day on the interenet. Business as usual. Just another failed attempt at rational discourse.

[Seabass]

Fuck it, never mind. There will be no reasonable middle ground in this debate, looks like.

This your first gun debate?

[FBM]

Fuck it, never mind. There will be no reasonable middle ground in this debate, looks like.

This your first gun debate?

You obviously havent bothered to read anything I've written, either. My first gun debate? This week, yes. But I get your point. It was an exercise in futility, considering the liklihood of engaging someone who is simultaneously objective, well-informed and rational about it. I'll just go back to doing something more constructive and that has more probability of a desirable outcome, like stabbing myself in the eye with an ice pick. Bang bang.

[Woodbutcher]

Fuck it, never mind. There will be no reasonable middle ground in this debate, looks like.

This your first gun debate?

This week, yes. But I get your point. It was an exercise in futility, considering the liklihood of engaging someone who is simultaneously objective, well-informed and rational about it. I'll just go back to doing something more constructive and that has more probability of a desirable outcome, like stabbing myself in the eye with an ice pick. Bang bang.

I agree with you FBM. I think those in here who oppose mental health checks know that they could not pass them. It's always the worst case scenario with them, no trust whatsoever in the government it seems. Seth would take a fucking rifle to the production of "Swan Lake" because there might be sharks in the water...

[Wumbologist]

Unless of course those people who are law-abiding, who have committed no crime, have voluntarily sought medical treatment for a mental health issue. You've already said you want to restrict their rights.

I don't think that FBM is talking about anyone who's been to a shrink, but rather people who are unstable enough as to be unfit for firearms ownership. Again, I can agree with that principle but I just can't see how it could be implemented in good faith without turning into what you're describing, so I don't know what that's worth.

And I disagree with any effort at all to curtail any person's rights because of what they might do according to some government employee somewhere.

What about a known heroin addict, who hasn't had a history of violent crime? A paranoid schizophrenic with a shaky grasp on reality? On some level I agree with you in principle here but I can't imagine that there is no case where you would say "Dude shouldn't have a gun" despite not yet having committed a violent crime.

[Seabass]

Fuck it, never mind. There will be no reasonable middle ground in this debate, looks like.

This your first gun debate?

You obviously havent bothered to read anything I've written, either. My first gun debate? This week, yes. But I get your point. It was an exercise in futility, considering the liklihood of engaging someone who is simultaneously objective, well-informed and rational about it. I'll just go back to doing something more constructive and that has more probability of a desirable outcome, like stabbing myself in the eye with an ice pick. Bang bang.

I'm just kiddin' around, dude.

I got sucked in to this discussion too, but then I came to my senses and beelined for the exit.

[Seth]

OTOH, the political will to intensify the focus on removing illegally owned firearms wouldn't meet any opposition at all, I think.

I think it actually would. The NRA would probably counter it with the slippery slope logic they like to use, and a lot of right-wing types would buy into it. "First they want to verify that everyone's guns are legal, then they'll want tighter restrictions on who gets to own them, then they'll restrict certain types which can be sold, etc..."

Maybe I've become cynical lately, but there really is a certain "dumb as we wanna be" pride to be found.

And that's exactly what they will (and have) done in the past, which is why we won't tolerate it now.

[Seth]

I really oppose a mental health check for firearm ownership.

Evaluator: Do you want to own a gun

Applicant: Yes, that's why I'm here.

Evaluator: ZOMG!!! He's crazy!!! Don't let this person have a gun!!!!!

Applicant is being interviewed for the very reason that s/he wants to own a firearm. That would not be a disqualifying criterion.

You fail to understand the point. If the government has the authority to demand a "mental evaluation" of an otherwise law-abiding citizen prior to granting them permission to own a gun, the government WILL abuse that authority by, for example, defining the desire to own a gun as a mental illness sufficient to deny the permit.

This is EXACTLY what the left-wing medical community is lobbying for. They want to declare "gun violence" a "public health emergency" that will give them the power to ban and confiscate guns based on THEIR assessment that owning, or wanting to own a gun is "pathological."

This is why the right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not permission granted by the government. Since it's a right, one is free to exercise it as one chooses unless and until one does so in a manner contrary to the law or public safety, at which point that right, like all rights, may be reasonably regulated.

Mere possession of a firearm, or even the carrying of one in public, is not automatically a danger to the public. It's what you DO WITH the firearm that determines whether or not the government has authority to regulate that possession.

I hate to say it, but while I don't disagree with you in principle, FBM, I feel Seth is right on the reality of it. I see it in action here in Massachusetts, where we have "may issue" licensing laws and they are abused. In Boston, you CANNOT get a license to carry unless you are prepared to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees and wait years. Some towns will freely issue licenses to a person who passes background checks, others will not, because they see issuing licenses or not as a privilege that they can deal out on their own prerogative. I wouldn't mind the system MA uses for licensing... IF it was used fairly, and everyone who meets the qualifications were issued a license as it should be. I think the unfortunate problem with restrictions like those, or like the idea of a mental health check, is the potential for abuse. I'd be all for a system of reasonable mental health checks, if I were convinced that it would be done in a fair and impartial manner and not susceptible to being morphed into a tool for arbitrarily denying permits to perfectly good folks.

And that's the way it was in most places, prior to 1985. It was that way in Colorado, where it was at the Sheriff's or Chief of Police's discretion and permits were handed out largely as political patronage. First, Chiefs of Police were stripped of their authority, and then the Legislature, responding to literally DECADES of corruption and favoritism, "occupied the field" and passed a "shall issue" law which says precisely that those who have received specific training and have passed a careful background investigation SHALL be issued a permit that is valid in "all areas" of the state with certain specific exemptions including K-12 schools, courts, jails and public buildings where there is full-time metal-detector searches and security, along with federal property not regulated by the state.

And NONE of the dire predictions of the hoplophobes and anti-gun zealots of blood running in the gutters if CCW was made lawful have come to pass, not anywhere it's now permitted, which is more than 40 states. In fact, in every one of those states, violent crime rates have DROPPED after the passage of "shall issue" and "Castle Doctrine" laws.

[Seth]

None of you are even reading what I've written at face value. Each of you is super-imposing his own local issues and slanted political agendas over what I have written and are running off with strawman arguments and slippery slope appeals. SNAFU. So what. Another day on the interenet. Business as usual. Just another failed attempt at rational discourse.

Evidently you're being obtuse then, and you need to clarify what you actually mean, because I quoted your own words and explained why I responded the way I did. If you feel misunderstood, then tell us exactly how this is so and what your argument actually is in more clear terms.

[Robert_S]

None of you are even reading what I've written at face value. Each of you is super-imposing his own local issues and slanted political agendas over what I have written and are running off with strawman arguments and slippery slope appeals. SNAFU. So what. Another day on the interenet. Business as usual. Just another failed attempt at rational discourse.

"slipper slope" might not be a fallacy here. I still think that the definition of "sane" is already slippery as it is and adding a political motivation to muck with things for PR points usually provides some slant. I chose the most catch 22 example I could to illustrate that point. I think the criteria ought to be something that can be spelled out clearly in less than a five sentences.

Already there have been calls for people on the terrorist watch list to be denied firearms. I can just hear it: "He was on a terrorist watch list, but they let him buy a gun anyway... " But what do you have to do to get on a "watch list?" Anything that makes a paranoid bastard in Washington nervous. But the words you see... "Terrorist watch list"

[Seth]

Fuck it, never mind. There will be no reasonable middle ground in this debate, looks like.

This your first gun debate?

This week, yes. But I get your point. It was an exercise in futility, considering the liklihood of engaging someone who is simultaneously objective, well-informed and rational about it. I'll just go back to doing something more constructive and that has more probability of a desirable outcome, like stabbing myself in the eye with an ice pick. Bang bang.

I agree with you FBM. I think those in here who oppose mental health checks know that they could not pass them. It's always the worst case scenario with them, no trust whatsoever in the government it seems. Seth would take a fucking rifle to the production of "Swan Lake" because there might be sharks in the water...

No, I'd take a handgun to Swan Lake because there might be a nutcase in the wings with a rifle.

The notion of "mental health checks" is an attractive one often touted by Democrats and gun-haters over here. The reason that they call it "sensible gun regulation" is precisely because they KNOW that the criteria for what constitutes acceptable mental health are easily manipulated by anti-gun doctors and bureaucrats to create a bar so high that normal citizens cannot pass the test. It's happened before. Such "mental health checks" are inherently subjective and invasive and prone to abuse, which is why we don't allow them as a prior restraint condition of the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right. We believe that unless you demonstrate through your behavior that you are not capable of possessing firearms safely and appropriately, then it is your right to do so right up until you DO do something unsafe or insane. This is a safeguard of individual liberty that doesn't exist in the UK, where someone can be forced to undergo psychological evaluation merely because some copper decides he wants to fuck with that person. The exact same sort of rationalizations were used in Soviet Russia to "treat" dissidents and counterrevolutionaries as being insane, the metric for insanity being, of course, that they did not buy wholeheartedly into the Communist agenda. Hundreds of thousands of Russians and others were thrown in "insane asylums" and were mistreated, medicated, shock-treated and otherwise "psychologically repaired" as a method of outright torture of political prisoners.

And yes, I have absolutely no trust whatsoever in the government when it comes to my fundamental rights, particularly my right to free speech and my right to keep and bear arms. This is because the government has repeatedly proven that it is not to be trusted, and that if given a little power to regulate in those areas, it will overstep its legitimate authority and quickly begin abusing the rights of citizens to suit the political aspirations and expediency of politicians in Washington.

We have a LONG history of exactly that; government abusing its authority by disarming disfavored groups (like blacks) in spite of the clear proscriptions against doing so in the 2nd Amendment.

So it's perfectly rational and reasonable to refuse to trust the government to be neutral and objective when it comes to "licensing" the right to keep and bear arms.

[mozg]

I don't think that FBM is talking about anyone who's been to a shrink, but rather people who are unstable enough as to be unfit for firearms ownership. Again, I can agree with that principle but I just can't see how it could be implemented in good faith without turning into what you're describing, so I don't know what that's worth.

There's already a mechanism in place for that. If a person's mental illness makes that person likely to be a danger to himself or someone else, there is a legal process in place by which that person can be involuntarily placed in a psychiatric facility or adjudicated mentally defective. It's not easy to do, and it shouldn't be, because it means depriving that person of a number of rights not only firearm ownership.

What about a known heroin addict, who hasn't had a history of violent crime? A paranoid schizophrenic with a shaky grasp on reality? On some level I agree with you in principle here but I can't imagine that there is no case where you would say "Dude shouldn't have a gun" despite not yet having committed a violent crime.

Being a user of illegal drugs is already a federal prohibitor. So is having 'a history of violent crime' convictions. All felonies and aome misdemeanors (those that carry a maximum penalty of 2 or more years in prison) are federal prohibitors, as well as having three DUI convictions within a five year period.

Unless your hypothetical heroin addict is not actually using heroin, has been pardoned and had his rights restored, he is federally prohibited from so much touching a firearm for the rest of his life.

It would be very helpful if the people who are suggesting that we need more laws to reach some kind of middle ground did more homework into the restrictions already in place.

Already there have been calls for people on the terrorist watch list to be denied firearms. I can just hear it: "He was on a terrorist watch list, but they let him buy a gun anyway... " But what do you have to do to get on a "watch list?" Anything that makes a paranoid bastard in Washington nervous. But the words you see... "Terrorist watch list"

The list itself is secret, as are the criteria used to place someone on it. For a long time, they denied the list even existed. What we do know is that people are placed on it by name without any other identifying or specific information. Merely having the same first and last name of someone the government considers to be a potential bogeyman is enough to be on it.