Dear Ms. Ramirez,
A friend directed me to your column of November 21, 2008, thinking that since I live near Davis I might find it interesting. She also pointed out Al Martinez's LA Times column of December 1, 2008.I apologize for the rude and/or threatening letters you have received. Unfortunately this is an emotionally charged issue and many people (on both sides of the issue) have poor impulse control. As a retired police officer, I would assure you and your Mother that almost without exception these fools don't act on their words.
I do have a few comments -- first, I wonder if you think that all police officers are "off [their] rockers" as they frequently carry "pocket-sized killing machines to 'lecture'" (albeit without "burning desire" -- it's just part of the job).
I'm not affiliated with SCCC in any fashion, but I know that the organization does not "argue for the arming of the mentally unstable," it merely advocates that colleges and universities not be exempt from the firearm rules that generally apply in society -- that concealed weapon license holders can legally carry a weapon as a means of protection for themselves and others.
If SCCC's goals became law, in California this would limit the legal carrying of weapons to those who have reached 21, passed a practical exam showing competence and safety in the handling of the firearm(s) they will use and have been "certified" by their local police chief or sheriff (California is a "may issue" state -- chiefs and sheriffs can deny a permit to anyone for any reason, no explanation or justification required).
Of course, this would not change the illegal carrying of weapons, just as the situation is now, anyone could illegally carry a weapon.
In closing, I would like to extend an invitation to you and one or two of your friends to visit our local shooting range for a session in firearm safety, handling and marksmanship. I will provide ammunition, several handguns and longarms and safety equipment.
Respectfully,
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Comment on SC Heller Decision
Let's see if I can make this point in a sensible, understandable manner - in many people's minds the SC seems to give a tacit OK to the machine gun ban as they are not "in common use,"Scalia also used the term "unusual and dangerous."
But, as many have noted, in the US, machine guns were pretty effectively banned (by using tax powers) fairly early in their developmental history. I think the Thompson was one of the first truly portable machine guns when it came out in 1921. The ban was instituted in 1934.
This gives the government a trump card over all future improvements in self-defense technology. As soon as a new, more effective method of self-defense is developed, it can be banned, as it is not "in common use."
As a thought experiment, imagine that Heller was decided around 1500, just as firearms were coming into military use in Europe. In this scenario the decision would give citizens the right to use swords, knives and archery equipment for self defense, but not the "uncommon, unusual and dangerous" firearms.
Where would self-defense be then? And where are we now? Should the government have exclusive access to all future improvements in self-defense technology?
Sebastian of "Snowflakes in Hell" had an interesting comment on this problem:
I think the courts are going to have to face this paradox they've created with Heller at some point. It's not a perfect construction of the amendment by any stretch, but I suspect the majority didn't hold for anything stronger.
What I think you can argue, within the framework the Supreme Court has laid out, is whether an arm is in common civilian use has to include whether it's in common police use. If there's no exception for police, then we can assume that such an arm isn't an individual arm useful for self-defense and thus wouldn't be protected. If there is a police exception, the question would be whether it's a part of ordinary police equipment. If the answer is yes, it's a protected arm.
That's not to say the federal courts would be willing to go this way, but it would be a way out of the paradox the Supreme Court has created. As new technology comes online, to the extent that they are useful for self-defense, the police will want to adopt it, so government will have a powerful incentive to not ban the technology for police work. I think the key is to get the courts to say when an arm is not in common use because of government regulation of the arm in question, the courts have to look at whether the arm is also in common police use.
It's not perfect, but it deals with the situation you describe. Whether the courts go for it is another question, and anybody's guess.
But, as many have noted, in the US, machine guns were pretty effectively banned (by using tax powers) fairly early in their developmental history. I think the Thompson was one of the first truly portable machine guns when it came out in 1921. The ban was instituted in 1934.
This gives the government a trump card over all future improvements in self-defense technology. As soon as a new, more effective method of self-defense is developed, it can be banned, as it is not "in common use."
As a thought experiment, imagine that Heller was decided around 1500, just as firearms were coming into military use in Europe. In this scenario the decision would give citizens the right to use swords, knives and archery equipment for self defense, but not the "uncommon, unusual and dangerous" firearms.
Where would self-defense be then? And where are we now? Should the government have exclusive access to all future improvements in self-defense technology?
Sebastian of "Snowflakes in Hell" had an interesting comment on this problem:
I think the courts are going to have to face this paradox they've created with Heller at some point. It's not a perfect construction of the amendment by any stretch, but I suspect the majority didn't hold for anything stronger.
What I think you can argue, within the framework the Supreme Court has laid out, is whether an arm is in common civilian use has to include whether it's in common police use. If there's no exception for police, then we can assume that such an arm isn't an individual arm useful for self-defense and thus wouldn't be protected. If there is a police exception, the question would be whether it's a part of ordinary police equipment. If the answer is yes, it's a protected arm.
That's not to say the federal courts would be willing to go this way, but it would be a way out of the paradox the Supreme Court has created. As new technology comes online, to the extent that they are useful for self-defense, the police will want to adopt it, so government will have a powerful incentive to not ban the technology for police work. I think the key is to get the courts to say when an arm is not in common use because of government regulation of the arm in question, the courts have to look at whether the arm is also in common police use.
It's not perfect, but it deals with the situation you describe. Whether the courts go for it is another question, and anybody's guess.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Blogging
Note to self - "You can't reason a person out of something that reason didn't convince them of."
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid
I recently watched "The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid" a 1972 Western about the James-Younger Gang. Cliff Roberston, playing Cole Younger, is casing the town for a bank robbery (in 1876). The townspeople take him to a baseball game and tell him that it is the "new national pastime." Younger replies, "Nonsense. The national pastime is shooting. Always has been, always will be."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Just One Question?
John Lott asks "one question" ("I would ask gun control advocates one question: name a single place in the entire world where murder rates fell after gun control laws were passed.") Joe Huffman asks a slightly different one ("Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"). A few comments about these two "Just One Question"s.
Playing the Devil's Advocate -- as to Lott's question -- is it just murders that we wish to reduce by firearms control, or are we trying to lower the death rate by all causes which could be caused by firearms (murder, manslaughter, suicide, accidents, etc)?
And as to Joe's question, -- how do you define "safer?"
Gun Controllers should be asked "what is the goal of your proposal?" I suspect that for most, the true goal is to not have guns around and if that means an increase in the actual death rate (by other causes - knives, pills, baseball bats, etc) then that is acceptable. We don't like "guns," but we're actually OK with violence as long as it's not caused by guns.
In order to solve a problem the goal needs to be accurately understood. Jerry Pournelle provided a classic example of this recently. The WWII Battle of the North Atlantic. Initially the tactics of the Allies were chosen to optimize the chances of sinking German submarines. Then the strategists looked at the problem and decided that this wasn't the criterion at all: what was really wanted was for more cargo to get to England. Instead of using tactics designed to optimize the chances of sinking German subs, they switched to tactics designed to break up the submarine wolf packs, keep them submerged, and thus prevent them from attacking convoys. The new tactics didn't sink as many German subs, but greatly increased the amount of cargo getting through.
Back to gun control - civil rights restrictionists need to be questioned very firmly about the goal of their latest proposal. Why should society give up a civil right for a proposal that has very little chance of succeeding in its goal?
Playing the Devil's Advocate -- as to Lott's question -- is it just murders that we wish to reduce by firearms control, or are we trying to lower the death rate by all causes which could be caused by firearms (murder, manslaughter, suicide, accidents, etc)?
And as to Joe's question, -- how do you define "safer?"
Gun Controllers should be asked "what is the goal of your proposal?" I suspect that for most, the true goal is to not have guns around and if that means an increase in the actual death rate (by other causes - knives, pills, baseball bats, etc) then that is acceptable. We don't like "guns," but we're actually OK with violence as long as it's not caused by guns.
In order to solve a problem the goal needs to be accurately understood. Jerry Pournelle provided a classic example of this recently. The WWII Battle of the North Atlantic. Initially the tactics of the Allies were chosen to optimize the chances of sinking German submarines. Then the strategists looked at the problem and decided that this wasn't the criterion at all: what was really wanted was for more cargo to get to England. Instead of using tactics designed to optimize the chances of sinking German subs, they switched to tactics designed to break up the submarine wolf packs, keep them submerged, and thus prevent them from attacking convoys. The new tactics didn't sink as many German subs, but greatly increased the amount of cargo getting through.
Back to gun control - civil rights restrictionists need to be questioned very firmly about the goal of their latest proposal. Why should society give up a civil right for a proposal that has very little chance of succeeding in its goal?
Kennedy's Seat
From the Republican point of view another serendipitous outcome of Brown's election will be the dispersal and/or departure of Kennedy's formidable staff.
Rutan on Climate
Burt Rutan, designer/builder of Voyager, the first plane to fly around the world without stopping or refueling, has some very interesting and convincing comments on Climate Change.
What is Truth?
My wife and I have had a discussion along these lines. When our son was about five he was confused and mistaken about something. Dispite our efforts to show him his misunderstanding he refused to agree with us.
My wife got a bit upset and started to tell him he was lying. I defended him and said, no, he wasn’t lying, he was wrong. My wife’s opinion was that since what he was saying was not “true” it was a lie.
As an example she said those who deny Christ are liars. I think things are a bit more nuanced. Denying something which you know, in your heart, to be true is lying, while making an honest mistake is not.
Conversely, telling a non-truth, which does not benefit you and objectively benefits another (No, Mr. Gestapo, there are no Jews in our attic.) is also not lying.
Entry Jobs
The job everyone looks down on is "burger flipping" -- working in a fast food restaurant. But, as Theodore Dalrymple once said "There is nothing dishonourable or dishonest about stacking shelves. On the contrary, it is a socially useful thing to do."
There a many useful things a young person learns in such a job -- being on time, following directions, being neat and presentable, respecting customers and your coworkers, etc. Many have gotten their starts in work life in these types of jobs.
It does our society no good to denigrate any work, no matter how seemingly menial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)