[Vision2020] A 2nd amendment argument against the NRA plan

[Joe Campbell]

I agree with most of what you say Paul, except in two cases. First, when
you say "the problem is that these spree shooting incidents all seem to be
different." Different in their manifestation but not necessarily different
in their cause: young suicidal/homicidal males. I'm over simplifying but
the point is there are a lot of similarities.

You also write: "these shootings don't seem to me to be crimes of
opportunity." Maybe easy access to semiautomatics provides the opportunity.
Yes the killers "planned things," but maybe we can make things just a
little tougher to carry out and it might help a lot, a lot of bang for the
buck. That's what happened in NYC.

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Joe, some comments:
>
>  "1/ Mass shootings seem to be on the rise, maybe even since Aurora.
> Maybe that is a false perception on my part but the comparative number of
> mass shootings here as opposed to those in other countries is noticeable."
>
> I'd have to see some statistics.  It may be that they are simply
> publicized faster these days.  More of that evil skepticism that we've all
> beaten me around the head and shoulders for.
>
> "2/ I don't see the collection of semiautomatics as an issue. As folks
> note, MOST who own semiautomatics are law abiding; more likely than not
> they know how to handle guns, have gun safes, etc. It would be unwise to
> demand that people turn in guns and some kind of buy-back program would
> need to be implemented. The best you can do perhaps is a/ encourage folks
> to turn-in their automatic weapons, and b/ confiscate weapons discovered
> during criminal investigations. And we'd have to do some economic studies
> to see whether the buy-back would be cost effective. Many communities have
> buy-back programs, so my guess is that they are cost effective but I don't
> know."
>
> I could understand buy-back programs being relatively successful.  Some
> people come into guns through a family-members estate, or end up moving to
> an area where they can't shoot as often, or they have small kids in their
> house now and don't want any accidents from guns that are never used
> anyway.  I think they make sense.
>
> "There was a NYT article about reducing crime in NYC. The key insight --
> according to the article -- was that most crimes are crimes of opportunity.
> If you eliminate the "low-hanging fruit" most crimes are eliminated. We
> should find a policy with a limited impact on law-abiding citizens who are
> careful with their firearms yet make crimes of opportunity more difficult. "
>
> I agree, but the problem is that these spree shooting incidents all seem
> to be different.  What can you do to stop them, when they seem to be
> committed for a wide variety of reasons?  I would rather focus on effective
> security enhancements that aren't just meant to be visible and to show that
> 'we are doing something'.  Also, these shootings don't seem to me to be
> crimes of opportunity.  It appears that this guy may have targeted those
> kids because he jealous of the time his mother was devoting to them.  The
> Aurora shooter targeted the opening night of one particular movie.  The
> Columbine killers targeted the school where they were being bullied.
> Giffords attempted killer targeted a press event she was throwing.  In most
> of these killings, if not all of them, the killers procured weapons, ammo,
> and sometimes body armor ahead of time.  They seemed to have planned things
> to at least some degree.
>
> "3/ Obviously, as you've noted before, education is going to play a big
> role here, too. We need to let folks know that guns should be protected,
> educate people about the importance of gun safes, etc."
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with this.  Free classes and lots of available
> public information on how best to secure, handle, transport, etc. a weapon
> could be very useful.  Gary's idea (I think it was Gary) of providing tax
> breaks or other incentives for purchasing safes or trigger locks or other
> safety items is a good one.
>
> I would also throw in another item I think should be on the table, and
> that is charges of negligent homicide if a weapon you own was used by
> someone else to kill somebody and it was deemed by the court to have been
> improperly secured.  That might help some people get the idea that these
> are dangerous items through people's heads, and that they should keep them
> secured for their own good.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>wrote:
>
> **
> An interesting and informative article on the topic de jour from a
> different perspective:
>
>
> http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
>  Many thanks to the off-list participant who sent this to me. It sums up
> the problem (or lack there of) far better then I ever could.
>
> g
>
>  *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 23, 2012 12:56 PM
> *To:* Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] A 2nd amendment argument against the NRA plan
>
> We've noted some specific criticisms of the NRA plan, raised by Saundra,
> Sunil, and others. Here is a general argument against the NRA plan which
> rests on some but not all of the specific criticisms. By the "NRA plan," I
> mean the plan to deal with our gun violence problem by putting armed forces
> in our schools (and presumably other public venues).
>
> Since it is the NRA plan, if it is a good plan, it should preserve and be
> consistent with our 2nd amendment rights. Those rights are based on the
> need for protection of either of two forms: (a) protection against
> tyrannical governments as well as (b) the protection of your life, your
> interests, and the lives and interests of your family and friends. Thus,
> the NRA plan is justified by appeal to the 2nd amendment to the extent that
> it is based on and secures these type-a and type-b protections. Will the
> NRA better protect us from the threat of tyrannical governments or the
> threats of mass murderers, spree shooters, and other lunatics?
>
> It is far from clear that the NRA plan will protect us from mass murderers
> and spree shooters and there is good reason to think that it will cause
> more harm. The fact is that these folks are SUICIDAL as well as homicidal.
> Until it can be shown that the NRA plan will protect us from harm rather
> than lead us to more harm it should not be taken seriously.
>
> What about the need for semi-automatic weapons in order to form militias
> against a tyrannical government? Given this, we need a plan that won't put
> restrictions on semi-automatic weapons. Yet I don't see how putting armed
> government forces in every school in the country is going to increase the
> possibility of forming a militia to overtake a tyrannical government. It
> strikes me that forming a police state within the school system is exactly
> the wrong thing to do if your concern is that your government is taking
> away your freedom and is on the verge of becoming a tyranny.
>
> Best, Joe
>  ------------------------------
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121223/739f9106/attachment-0001.html>