New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | March 15, 2005

Big guns, live wires, and sour Kurds, in Reason Express.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← New at Reason | Main | Why We Don't Need Fashion Police →

See all 62 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|3.15.05 @ 2:16PM|#

I have to go to Costco to buy more salt for that Chalabi quote.

|3.15.05 @ 2:30PM|#

The argument against firearms in courthouses, and in favor of tasers and big sticks, applies equally well to homes.

|3.15.05 @ 2:32PM|#

Then there is the entire matter of firearms in courthouses. It simply makes no sense for those handling prisoners to carry guns. Tasers would be a much more rational choice, and evidently some jurisdictions are already moving to adopt them. Hurry.

Those leading the prisoners should at least be a closer match in physical stature. Nichols just took advantage of huge defensive mismatch. I doubt the same thing would have happened if the guard was 6'4" and 250lbs.

|3.15.05 @ 2:38PM|#

"Improving security for commuter trains and ferries, however, remains mostly a pipedream..."

Here in Seattle, we have ferry "security", sort of:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/security/

However, we also have online cameras to show where all the terrorist targets waiting on the dock are,

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/security/

as well as route, schedule, and real-time GPS positioning of every boat,

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/commuter_updates/vesselwatch/

and even boat design info, to give a better sense of where to put whatever device the terrorists have in mind,

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/your_wsf/our_fleet/index.cfm?fuseaction=classes

Man, I feel safer already. I'd hate to see how systems that are not the largest in the counrty are fairing.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/pdf/WSFLargest.pdf

|3.15.05 @ 2:38PM|#

Joe brings up a good point, although his motivation for doing so -- and his desired goal -- is probably a lot different from mine.

|3.15.05 @ 2:42PM|#

"The argument against firearms in courthouses, and in favor of tasers and big sticks, applies equally well to homes."

Actually, the argument against firearms is way off base. If everyone in court were allowed to carry, the guy wouldn't have made it 20 feet. Perhaps more to the point, if the guy had been in shackles (which is where people being brought to court on the suspicion of violent behavior should be), none of this would have happened.

|3.15.05 @ 2:50PM|#

The argument against firearms in courthouses, and in favor of tasers and big sticks, applies equally well to homes.

Except someone breaking into your home late at night could be armed in a multitude of different ways, whereas a prisoner being processed at a courthouse has at best a shank. In other words, the argument doesn't apply at all.

|3.15.05 @ 2:51PM|#

kmw, it also wouldn't have happened if there had been two five foot tall women with nightsticks, or if the accused had been wearing cuffs and leg irons.

WSDave, "If everyone in court were allowed to carry, the guy wouldn't have made it 20 feet." He probably wouldn't have tried, since there would bullets flying all over the building. Yeah, let's rely on people on the losing side of custody hearings, divorces, and eminent domain takings to keep their heads and not do anything destructive or stupid.

|3.15.05 @ 2:54PM|#

phobicon, someone "could" sneak a gun into a courthouse, or wage an armed assault. All sorts of things "could" happen. A PCP-head "could" keep coming at the guard after a taser jolt.

It's important to play the percentages, and the little bit of extra protection a homeowner gets from upgrading from mace or sawed-off bat to handgun is not worth the extra danger he puts himself in by keeping a gun where it's accessible in an emergency.

|3.15.05 @ 3:05PM|#

I'd rather defend my home with an unloaded gun than an armed taser. It's also important to play the percentages when it comes to what burglars will do when they feel they are up against lethal force, as opposed to simply getting shocked.

|3.15.05 @ 3:09PM|#

That's not a good idea either. If somebody is crazy, strung out, or stupid enough to burgle an occupied home, they could very well be crazy, strung out, or stupid enough to charge an "armed" man, and your standing there with an empty gun instead of something that could hurt somebody.

|3.15.05 @ 3:10PM|#

Perhaps more to the point, if the guy had been in shackles (which is where people being brought to court on the suspicion of violent behavior should be), none of this would have happened.

WSDave - Keep in mind Nichols is a rape suspect and not being charged with simple marijuana possession! Shackles don't apply to rape suspects! ;)

|3.15.05 @ 3:11PM|#

New info from the AP:

Security cameras had been rolling Friday morning as Nichols � a former college linebacker who had been found in court earlier in the week with two homemade knives in his shoes � overpowered deputy Cynthia Hall as the 5-foot-tall officer escorted him to his rape trial. No one was monitoring the cameras.

|3.15.05 @ 3:15PM|#

Three 5-foot women probably wouldn't have been able to stop him. He's a big guy.

|3.15.05 @ 3:23PM|#

joe,"Yeah, let's rely on people on the losing side of custody hearings, divorces, and eminent domain takings to keep their heads and not do anything destructive or stupid."

Bad things happen when people aren't used to being able to be rsponable for themselves. In time, however, people would learn. I'd would GLADLY trade a few senseless deaths for the greater good of a counrty that is allowed to be responable for it's own actions. How big of a coward is a person who is so afraid of what they might do with a gun that they take away everyone else ability to be responsible?

|3.15.05 @ 3:25PM|#

joe, "and your standing there with an empty gun instead of something that could hurt somebody."

Good reason to keep the gun loaded. How many gun owners are there in the US? Millions? Ten of millions? And how many bad gun things happen every year? Yes, it's a lot less.

|3.15.05 @ 3:26PM|#

"In time, however, people would learn."

So the theory here is that, maybe the fourth or fifth time a mother has her children taken away, or a wife-beater is ordered to pay child support, they won't respond with irrational rage? Good one.

|3.15.05 @ 3:27PM|#

joe - What is this extra danger that you mention by keeping a gun where it's accessible in an emergency?

|3.15.05 @ 3:27PM|#

s.a.m., "Keep in mind Nichols is a rape suspect and not being charged with simple marijuana possession! Shackles don't apply to rape suspects! ;)"

What was I thinking!! Those damn marijuana freaks might break free and get somebody high!! Oh, the humanity!!

|3.15.05 @ 3:32PM|#

joe, "So the theory here is that, maybe the fourth or fifth time a mother has her children taken away, or a wife-beater is ordered to pay child support, they won't respond with irrational rage? Good one."

Your assumption that everyone who loses in court is going to become violent is assinine(sp?). Do these same people go out after court, get a gun, and go back and kill everyone involved? They certainly could, but they don't. 50% of marriges end in divorce, but 50% don't end in death.

|3.15.05 @ 4:55PM|#

More specious anti-gun arguments from joe... What a surprise. I'll give him points for persistence and cunning for jumping threads to argue essentially the same point after getting hammered.

It doesn't speak highly of his ability to recognize a lost cause, tho, to keep arguing for the same points (gun control and eminent domain property thefts are GOOD for you) after getting clobbered for arguing positions revealed to be immoral and indefensible in a society based on human rights.

"The argument against firearms in courthouses, and in favor of tasers and big sticks, applies equally well to homes." - joe

"Actually, the argument against firearms is way off base. If everyone in court were allowed to carry, the guy wouldn't have made it 20 feet. Perhaps more to the point, if the guy had been in shackles (which is where people being brought to court on the suspicion of violent behavior should be), none of this would have happened." - WSDave

WSDave's got this one pretty much nailed. I'd like to add that this is a good microcosm example of what happens in a world where firearms are prohibited to everyone but the police. The bad guy gets a weapon illegally, uses it to kill, and no one else has the means to stop them because they aren't allowed to have a gun "for their own and everyone else's good."

Joe's response is to assume that anyone in a fierce legal battle will be likely to turn to violence, so they are a class of people who should have their right to self-defense revoked: "Yeah, let's rely on people on the losing side of custody hearings, divorces, and eminent domain takings to keep their heads and not do anything destructive or stupid."

WSDave responded pretty well, but I can't figure out if joe's statement qualifies as crazy or just plain dumb... All I can say to that is, "Uh, well... Yeah, let's not deprive them of their Constitutional rights just because you think they might get angry."

I'm still waiting for joe to explain how the loaded pistol and the loaded shotgun I keep in my home are a danger to me and mine... Like other questions I and others have asked him, I suspect this will go unanswered.

R C Dean|3.15.05 @ 5:08PM|#

It's important to play the percentages, and the little bit of extra protection a homeowner gets from upgrading from mace or sawed-off bat to handgun is not worth the extra danger he puts himself in by keeping a gun where it's accessible in an emergency.

Well, joe, you are certainly free to make this decision for your yourself. Just don't try to make it for me.

I'll have you know that "the extra danger I put myself in by keeping a gun where it's accessible in an emergency" is, to date, zero.

The peace of mind that comes from having a high-capacity .45 close to hand is, however, priceless.

R C Dean|3.15.05 @ 5:12PM|#

The argument against firearms in courthouses, and in favor of tasers and big sticks, applies equally well to homes.

Actually, if the incident in Atlanta shows anything, it is that there are some jobs that women are just not biologically suited for, and one of them is guarding prisoners. Due to the differences is size, strength, etc.

Certainly, this is a much more rational conclusion to draw than joe's apparent conclusion that my guns should be confiscated because some guard in Atlanta couldn't keep control of hers.

|3.15.05 @ 5:17PM|#

RC Dean sez:

The peace of mind that comes from having a high-capacity .45 close to hand is, however, priceless.

Is that the Para-Ord variety, or the Glock? I'm an original 1911 man, myself.

|3.15.05 @ 6:27PM|#

I know that I'll be scoffed at for this by any lurking purists, but I own Glocks in .40 and .45 and a customized 1911-model Springfield Armory .45. I really like the 1911's classic feel and it's definitely the most accurate. For ease of use and carry, though, the Glocks are good gear.

I can honestly say that I like all three for different reasons, and that they have never posed a hazard to the life, limb or eyesight of any member of my family, nor to anyone who was not an immediate threat.

"That's not a good idea either. If somebody is crazy, strung out, or stupid enough to burgle an occupied home, they could very well be crazy, strung out, or stupid enough to charge an "armed" man, and your standing there with an empty gun instead of something that could hurt somebody."

Since I'm armed joe won't have to lose any sleep over my not having something close to hand "that could hurt somebody." More to the point, something to defend my folks from those who would do them harm. It's the rare "crazy, strung out, or stupid enough to charge" assailant who can walk away from two rounds to the chest and one to the head. If they're that hyped up, Mace spray or a bat might just make them mad, and I'm not willing to take that chance with my life or my family's.

Moral of the story: take responsibility for you and yours - or don't as you see fit - but don't try to deny others that right.

|3.15.05 @ 6:42PM|#

Rob,

I like Glocks, and I own a couple, but for some reason the trigger just doesn't feel "ideal" to me.

Must be from learning to shoot pre-1980.

I like the idea of a double-stack ala Para-Ord, but I haven't gotten around to purchasing one yet. So far, I just stick with the original browning 1911 because I can carry it concealed as well as for home defense. I'm not big enough to hide the extra fat grip of a double stack.

|3.15.05 @ 6:48PM|#

This has nothing to do with guns in courthouses, it has to do with the training and capabilities of those tasked to secure the court.

When an officer arrests a suspect, there are significant precautions taken with regard to weapon retention and deployment until the suspect is in handcuffs. When the cuffs come off, another set of precautions is supposed to be taken until the suspect is in a cell. Just for instance, the gun grab is very difficult to pull off if the armed officer is, say 8 ft. to the rear of the suspect with hand on weapon. The suspect should be seated when uncuffed, back to the officer. Finally, if you know you have a linebacker accused of violence, use the right people for security.

This was a complete failure on the part of the Sheriffs Department to train and staff appropriately.

|3.15.05 @ 7:00PM|#

If you like the Glock, but hate that trigger, try the "Croatian Sensation" Springfield XD.

Just to add fuel to the fire, stir the pot, and otherwise get myself flamed by the faithful, I will go on record as not trusting the 1911 design. The first most important thing is for a gun to go 'bang' when you pull the trigger, and 1911s have to get VERY expensive (not Kimber expensive, mind you - Les Baer expensive) before they can remotely touch the reliability of a Sig, HK, or Beretta. Of the old auto designs, the Hi Power is the better one.

And lo, Jason blasphemes ...

|3.15.05 @ 7:10PM|#

I can't vouch for the "vintage" of your shooting skills as a reason for your trigger preference, because I share it.

I didn't really start shooting pistols until the early to mid 90s and I have to admit the trigger feel on Glocks isn't really to my liking as well.

I've already been eying the Springfield HD with hungry eyes, maybe I'll indulge myself. Might even make me want to give up my Glocks... or at least not carry them as frequently.

|3.15.05 @ 7:13PM|#

Jason,

Blaspheme indeed. I have two Colts and one Kimber 1911. The Kimber has gone 10,000 rounds without a jam -- box stock. The Colts didn't like anything but ball until I buffed the feed ramp.

The reputation for jams on the 1911 is somewhat exaggerated. If you stick to ball, you'll get 100%. If you want to use flying ashtrays, just buff the feed ramp.

|3.15.05 @ 7:13PM|#

Oh, almost forgot... "Blasphemy! Burn the witch!" Heh...

On the other hand, JL is 100% accurate that this was a terrible failure by the Sheriff's Dept (which got people killed), not a good case for why we need "gun-free zones."

|3.15.05 @ 7:14PM|#

I like the Springfield XD's, too. They feel great in my hand and they're inexpensive.

|3.15.05 @ 7:15PM|#

...the little bit of extra protection a homeowner gets from upgrading from mace or sawed-off bat to handgun is not worth the extra danger he puts himself in by keeping a gun where it's accessible in an emergency.

joe, my wife and I (both well trained on gun safety, both with many visits to the range) are also eager to hear why the loaded guns in our home also put us in extra danger.

|3.15.05 @ 7:25PM|#

I should add that the US military didn't use 45 ball for 75 years because of any defensive inadequacies.

And contrary to most gun publications, it doesn't overpenetrate.

It is useless against kevlar, however.

|3.15.05 @ 7:28PM|#

joe's last post on this thread was 4 hours ago. I don't think he'll be back to defend his ideas. I've seen this from him before, and I for one am not going to respond to him anymore.

|3.15.05 @ 7:44PM|#

joe-

The biggest problem with keeping a taser in your home for self defense instead of a gun is that a taser can only be used at close range. With a gun you can stand far away and order the criminal out of your house, and if the criminal continues to move toward you then you have the ability to deal with him before he gets too close.

I will agree with joe on one thing: I'm cool with concealed carry in most cases, but not in courthouses. Courts are places where people go because they weren't able to resolve their disputes amicably. The cases are often emotional, and the stakes are high. I don't see anything wrong with requiring people to disarm before going into court to have their dispute settled by a third party. We can have lockers or a check-in system or whatever so that people can carry on their way to and from the courthouse, but it makes good sense to not have weapons available when a volatile judgement is handed down or somebody comes in to testify against a former associate.

|3.15.05 @ 7:51PM|#

Gunz r badd. Trust poleece. Their good.

jo junyer

|3.15.05 @ 8:14PM|#

I think the critical mass of gun nuttiness has already been reached on this thread, so I'll bow out of the Big Bullet discussion just this once. I was only talking about the 1911 as a design compared to the Hi Power as a design above. Blah. Why not?

I have to be convinced that I'm getting something extra for the extra size, weight, and/or lack of rounds that a dedicated .45 package makes me deal with. I just don't see it these days. Penetration and expanded size of a 124 +P Gold Dot is comparable or superior to any .45 made. 10 inches of penetration and an average of .76" in diameter at the end of the day is nothing to sneeze at, especially if you get twice as many rounds. I don't think that there is anything wrong with .45, I just don't think it holds any distinct advantages once you move into the world of hollow points. No handgun rounds are worth a crap against kevlar until you get much more significant changes than those between 9mm and .45.

I haven't been able to figure out .40. It has a pretty sharp recoil profile, much more so than .45. Under the clock, I know the extra kick slows me down over 9mm (especially +Ps in a polymer gun), and I again start to question what extra I'm getting. I keep coming back to 9, not out of love, but as a default. Cheap ammo is good, too.

There's something comforting about these discussions. Like an old pair of jeans. Or something. ;)

|3.15.05 @ 8:18PM|#

Use a shotgun for the close in work and a rifle for the long range stuff.

Pistols are for officers and about as useful as swords.

Dragoon!

|3.15.05 @ 8:41PM|#

Jason,

I own several wonder-nines -- some quite small -- so I know the feeling. I guess the difference for me was seeing how fast a deer will drop from a single .45acp round.

I've had deer run away on me from a 30-06, and 45/230 is the only one that's ever dropped one in it's tracks. I hear .44 mag does pretty good too, but I haven't seen that one yet.

|3.15.05 @ 9:05PM|#

It seems to be unusual, in WSDave's world, not to check a threat for four hours. Dave, why do I suspect you have strong opinions on the Kirk/Picard issue?

Anyway, both WSDave and Rob decided to "argue" against my point about armed people in courthouses by distorting my statement into "joe says everyone who loses in court will go on a rampage." Straw man much fellas?

And folks, there's no great mystery - an easilly accessible gun in your house in dangerous, because somebody could get at it. Duh. A kid, a burglar, someone in the house in a moment of madness...the scenarios are endless.

|3.15.05 @ 9:06PM|#

"With a gun you can stand far away and order the criminal out of your house, and if the criminal continues to move toward you then you have the ability to deal with him before he gets too close."

Just how big is your house, thoreau?

|3.15.05 @ 9:19PM|#

Just how big is your house, thoreau?

Doh! I had a brain fart and for some reason thought that you were talking about stun batons for some reason. OK, I'll grant that in many home defense situations the short range of a taser may not be much of a limitation compared to a gun.

But you also talked about baseball bats as home defense weapons. Sorry, but the range advantage of a gun over a baseball bat is clear. Not to mention that people with less upper body strength (e.g. many women and elderly people) would clearly be less able to use a baseball bat effectively. Finally, if the criminal has a gun then the baseball bat is pretty much useless.

So, I'd say that your suggestion of owning a baseball bat instead of a gun is clearly ridiculous, but in a house with small children you might have a point about the advantages of tasers. I still think, however, that a properly stored gun is as safe as a taser in a house with kids and more effective for home defense.

For the record, I don't own a gun, but I think I'll probably get one in the next few years.

|3.15.05 @ 9:22PM|#

Also for the record, I don't think there should be laws against people owning guns in their homes. I just don't think it's very good idea.

Sue me.

|3.15.05 @ 9:23PM|#

joe - you chide people for setting up straw men and then come back with one of your own?

By easily accessible, we're not talking about sitting on a nightstand. How about in a drawer next to your bed, in between the mattresses, or even up in a closet. If no one knows the gun is there besides the person who wants to be able to use it for the defence of their property and life, how is a kid or burgler going to easily find it? How about carrying it with you or having it locked up at most times, but having it in that 'easily accessible' place when you most fear a random burglary, say, at night? As for someone in the house in a moment of madness - what, are we in a Hitchcock film? How often is that even going to be an issue? And, of course, if someone really is crazy, angry, or drugged enough to want to start messing people up, knives, axes, and baseball bats can be 'easily accessible' and also have the potential for grievious bodily harm.

I'm sorry, joe, but I still don't understand your knee-jerk negative reaction to firearms, other than the fact that you're from Boston (I believe I've mentioned before how it's mostly my friends from back east who have similar reactions).

|3.15.05 @ 9:27PM|#

Dammit, joe and thoreau posted while I was typing...anyway, joe, I never claimed you said you wanted laws passed to ban having weapons in the home. And if you don't think it's a good idea, then don't do it. But I still don't understand why you don't realise their great potential as a tool for good and only see how horrible they could be. Cars can be horrible tools, and I know you're not overly fond of them either, but I'm sure you still drive from time to time.

And thoreau made some excellent points, as well, about a gun's effectiveness as a defencive weapon.

|3.15.05 @ 9:35PM|#

Lowdog, I don't have any great horror of guns. It's interesting you should assume that I do. I've fired guns, I have friends who own guns, and it's just not a big deal. You make a lot of assumptions.

"How about in a drawer next to your bed, in between the mattresses, or even up in a closet. If no one knows the gun is there besides the person who wants to be able to use it for the defence of their property and life, how is a kid or burgler going to easily find it?"

Everyone with kids over 2 is laughing at you.

|3.15.05 @ 9:35PM|#

A single shot taser is much less useful than a single shot firearm, and I wouldn't want that to be my only recourse, either.

Give me a taser that shoots straight, penetrates a leather jacket (nevermind the couch he might be standing behind), allows me to fire 7-8 times before doing a 1.5 second reload, and can incapacitate with the reliability of a hole in the lungs, and I'd seriously think about it. Oh, and I'd prefer that the taser not shock the crap out of me if the home invader grapples me as he gets hit.

|3.15.05 @ 10:02PM|#

"How about in a drawer next to your bed,"

Yes, put in the drawer next your bed - no one will think to look there!

"...in between the mattresses, or even up in a closet..."

Brilliant! And while you're at it, your wedding anniversary is a six digit number that would be perfect as your password.

I know, why don't you hide your loaded gun in your SOCK DRAWER!?! Forces of Evil, you are no match for my cunning, for I have hidden my firearm in the top drawer of my dresser, under my socks and underwear!

|3.16.05 @ 4:07AM|#

joe-

I'd guess that a sturdy metal box in the parents' bedroom with a combination lock would be enough to keep children and criminals from using the gun.

|3.16.05 @ 9:32AM|#

RC sez: "The peace of mind that comes from having a high-capacity .45 close to hand is, however, priceless."

Feeling like a tough guy does not equal being safer. I suspect a lot of gunowners are motivated more by how the gun makes them feel, than by critical thought about the plusses and minuses.

|3.16.05 @ 10:02AM|#

Joe, there are all sorts of small gun safes which are suitable for gun owners with kids. We have none, so it's not an issue, but when we do have kids, something will certainly have to change. You make it sound as if parents have no good options, but they do.

And countless times I've heard the argument that the gun can & will be taken from you, used against you. While we recognize the chance of that happening, we both consider it a very small chance, one that we're both certainly willing to take. I don't feel big or tough owning a gun, just safer.

Thanks for clarifying that you're not against taking away our guns. I'm certainly not for forcing you to own one. ;-)

|3.16.05 @ 12:12PM|#

For home defense, nothing beats a good, sturdy shotgun. The distinctive noise that comes when you cock the thing is unmistakable, and enough to convince any burglar who isn't strung out on angel dust that it probably wouldn't be a terribly good idea to come any closer. Handguns are too easy to miss in a dark room, which makes it a lot more likely that you'll have to get right up on an intruder before they notice that you're armed.

|3.16.05 @ 1:27PM|#

Joe, I'm impressed. You actually came back to defend your position. You deserve credit for that.

Unfortunately, it's only partial credit because your defense is only to the weakest points made and you use the least effective interpretation of the argument. Oh wait, there's a term for that that you JUST used: straw man.

I definitely didn't use a straw man argument. your argument is that we can't trust people not to get angry and shoot up a courtroom and the people in it. My argument is that yes, you can trust people not to do that, especially if people realize that other people will definitely shoot them if they go ape-shit and starting shooting. Your solution is to disarm everyone who goes to court. (I don't think I have mis-represented this argument - see straw man above - and if I have PLEASE show me how.) Mine is not to disarm people who aren't either in police custody or incarcerated.

I don't support removing people's rights just because they have to go to court. You do. You support removing someone' right to self-defense and to bear arms based on their physical location (being in a courtroom) prior to anything resembling due process. I don't.

Again, if I've mis-represented your argument, please explain.

Also, I'm glad we're clear on the point that gun safety is the responsibility of the gun owner. You should be able to prosecute someone for negligence, whether it's with a gun or with a car or a baseball bat. (Limitations of tasers have already been adequately explained.)

Glad to hear that you don't believe anyone shouldn't have the right to bear arms, and the fact that you willingly disarm yourself makes you someone I might have to defend someday, but not someon I have to worry about defending against. Thanks.

I still don't think that a loaded firearm is a threat to me or anyone in my family. Just like anything that could pose a danger to children or untrained adults, education is sufficient to keep them from sticking forks in light sockets, messing with firearms, or drinking Drano. Has been in my family for generations.

Tragedy does happen, but not if parents actually parent responsibly and pay attention to their children.

|3.16.05 @ 2:25PM|#

We have reached Goodwin's Law of Gun Debates. "Feeling like a tough guy..." and "...how it makes them feel...rather than critical thought..."; What's next joe, speculation on the relative size of genetalia? Because we all know that gun owners must be motivated by painfully small dicks as only hoplophobes are cabable of rational, critical thought on the issue of gun ownership vis risks and benifits. Maybe you can suggest a good herbal remedy?
Karl "Holy MicroPenis, Batman!" Freud

|3.16.05 @ 3:54PM|#

Mwuhahahaha! Now THAT was funny! Karl, you need to warn me before you do that, I nearly sprayed coffee on my computer screen!

I wasn't really eager to go down that road myself, but now that I think about it, I suspect it reveals that joe's vision of the role of gov't is substantially different from most folks on this board.

Most people on this board operate from the assumption that people are smart enough to logically choose to have a gun handy for their own self-interest.

Then there are others, the joes of the world, who want to control other people "for their own good." Their assumption is that people can't be trusted to make decisions and would only choose unwisely to own a gun based on their desire to be a "tough guy" and their incapacity for "critical thought."

I tend to think that a lot of gun owners unjustly see the latter sort of people as hoplophobes - irrationally wanting to rid the world of guns. I think actual hoplophobia is probably a pretty rare phobia and that gun control advocates tend to be more of the joe sort.

Their argument boils down to the "I'm smarter than you and should get to choose what rights you get to keep" school of thought.

There's a definite appeal to authority in most of joe's arguments that smells, to me anyway, an awful lot like Stuart Smalley on a crack&steroids cocktail: "I'm smarter than you, I'm better than you and doggonit, people like me should tell you what you can and can't do!"

|3.16.05 @ 4:36PM|#

joe-

Well, to be honest, I suspect that many gun owners DO get guns to enjoy the feeling that they get from owning one. It's called risk management. They know that if something bad happens they're in a better position. Not 100% safe (those sorts of notions lead to tragic mistakes), but safer than they'd be otherwise.

That's why I'll probably learn to shoot in the next few years. Of course, I'm not going to put all my eggs in one holster. A good alarm and a dog, not to mention a cell phone kept near the bed at night, are also good things to have. I know enough to know that over-reliance on and over-confidence in one's shooting ability is the best way to make a tragic mistake.

|3.16.05 @ 4:54PM|#

No joe, we've had this discussion before - I don't think you're horrified of guns, and I know you've shot them. My friends who think like you often are in the same position as yourself, and I still disagree with their thinking. I honestly think it's a difference in upbringing a lot of the time.

And yes, my examples of where you could keep your gun at fairly easy reach probably won't pass your 'in a safe place' test, but they weren't meant to. Just illustrating that you don't have to have the gun in a postition where someone can just walk into your home, pick it up, and use it against you.

I think that if you have children, you teach them gun safety at a young age and trust them to exercise good jusdgement. There were always multiple handguns and rifles in my house when I was growing up, but since I was always taught to respect them as a tool that could be used for recreation and defence, but were also capable of tragedy, I didn't go around playing with them when my folks weren't home. Maybe I'm an exceptional case, but I don't think so. As rob said, you have to trust people to make wise decisions and you shouldn't penalise most people just because some people are idiots.

|3.17.05 @ 10:06AM|#

"My argument is that yes, you can trust people not to do that, especially if people realize that other people will definitely shoot them if they go ape-shit and starting shooting."

Um, yeah, the presense of armed court officers isn't a deterrent, but the presence of armed private citizens would be? Not buying it.

Second, you're assuming that armed pariticipants in court cases are going to have reliably rational responses. Have you ever actually read any newspaper accounts of how people behave in courthouses?

|3.17.05 @ 1:37PM|#

joe - I've noticed that you've stopped trying to argue that I used a straw man version of your argument. I take it that means that's settled. But you've also stopped responding to the meat of my arguments, and are resorting to flip statements that might have gotten you points with the guys I hung out with back in high school but don't hold much water now that we're adults. (Mostly, anyway.)

1. "Um, yeah, the presense of armed court officers isn't a deterrent, but the presence of armed private citizens would be? Not buying it." -joe

Armed officers ARE a deterrent to violence, otherwise they wouldn't be there. But other armed people (regular citizens, as unthinkable as that might be!) in a courthouse are ALSO a deterrent. As in Atlanta, or other similar situations where the armed officer has been incapacitated, regular armed citizens would be able to respond to protect themselves and others when the officer is overwhelmed and her firearm stolen and used on other people. This seems pretty self-evident, and your point seems flippant and without substance to me.

2. "Second, you're assuming that armed pariticipants in court cases are going to have reliably rational responses. Have you ever actually read any newspaper accounts of how people behave in courthouses?" - joe

I've spent (or wasted, depending on POV) plenty of hours of my life in courthouses. People get upset but rarely violent - 0% of the time in my anecdotal experience, in fact. That seems reliably reasonable to me.

Again, your assumption is that because someone is inevitably going to resort to violence in a courthouse EVERYONE should be deprived of their right bear arms prior to entering. Not based on anything more than your opinion (which seems tied to your views on restricting firearms).

I suspect that you're basing your view of how people act in courthouses from what you've read in newspaper accounts. Obviously what gets reported in newspapers and on TV have to meet the criteria of news. "Another business-as-usual day (read: without a shootout) at the Atlanta courthouse" isn't going to make the news. Sorry to belabor the obvious, but time in the real world might help you understand that in our society violence is rarer than in many parts of the world, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be capable of defending yourself.

Again, I think this stems from a totally different views of the role of gov't. You believe the gov't is here to ensure a wide variety of vaguely-defined issues for the general populace and should have fairly intrusive authority to accomplish this. (Roughly the "state power and authority is for your own good school of thought.")

Mine is that gov't should be restricted to a very narrow role, mostly relating to protection of rights and adjudication of disputes. (Roughly the "constitutional or natural rights" school of thought.)

I have to admit I'm looking forward to your response, since these are some things that seem to have been the underlying current in most of our disagreements.

|3.17.05 @ 2:20PM|#

rob, the strawman quality of putting "all" into somebody else's statement to make it look silly is so widely understood that I'm not bothering to repeat it. You've already been pinged, you stopped doing it, so I stopped slagging you for it. You want more? Do it again, I'll call you on it again.

The extra deterrent value of having additional armed people, beyond a couple dozen court officers, may generate some marginal increase in deterrence, but not much. Three armed guys at each end of the hall is pretty much the same as four armed guyes at each end of the hall. On the other hand, the extra danger of having people with an involvement in a court case carrying firearms is significant, compared to having them unarmed. One guy shooting up a courtroom is significantly more harmful than zero guys shooting up a courtroom.

"People get upset but rarely violent - 0% of the time in my anecdotal experience, in fact." And the fact that they are seriously outmatched in the amount of force at their disposal by the armed court officers has nothing to do with this? The greater difficulty in getting at a judge with your bare hands, compared to getting off a shot or two before someone stops you, doesn't play any role in people's decisions? Not buying it.

"Sorry to belabor the obvious, but time in the real world might help you understand that in our society violence is rarer than in many parts of the world." Ah, yes, the accusationg that your opponent isn't in "the real world." Thanks for the walk down memory lane. Care to call me a terrorist? That's another oldie but goodie.

In the real world, court cases and the imposition of force by the government to resolve disputes, determine people's futures, and impose punishment, is one of the most heated, potentially dangerous activities in our culture. With all those DUIs, you've probably noticed that people storm red faced out of courtrooms and court buildings at a slightly higher rate than, say, the grocery store.

"Mine is that gov't should be restricted to a very narrow role, mostly relating to protection of rights and adjudication of disputes." This is what makes an imbalance of power between the state and the public in court so important - the adjucation and use of coercion that are necessary parts of the application of the law require it. If there is some doubt about who will win when push comes to shove, the system doesn't work. Court is not a consensual institution.

|3.17.05 @ 5:23PM|#

"rob, the strawman quality of putting 'all' into somebody else's statement to make it look silly is so widely understood that I'm not bothering to repeat it. You've already been pinged, you stopped doing it, so I stopped slagging you for it. You want more? Do it again, I'll call you on it again."

1. You claimed I misrepresented your argument, that I'd "straw man'd" you. 2. I re-iterated my statement about your argument and asked you to show me how I'd mis-represented it. 3. You stopped claiming I'd mis-represented your argument. 4. I point out that you've stopped claiming I mis-represented you and now you're "ready to call [me] on it again"? Without pointing out what is wrong with my characterization of your argument.

Once more: Show me how I misrepresented your argument. Please. But don't claim that you're leaving it alone because you've proved it. In other words, "show me the straw man!" Or give it up, since you know it not to be the case.

"The extra deterrent value of having additional armed people, beyond a couple dozen court officers...zero guys shooting up a courtroom."

So your solution is to hire 6 cops to stand in the hallway just in case someone might act irrationally instead of just letting people defend themselves??? I now understand EXACTLY how the gov't has become so bloated. Operating on this model, the gov't should just send us each a check to arm and police ourselves since eventually nearly everyone would have to be employed by the gov't as a law enforcement officer anyway. (See Transportation Security Administration growth vs. minimal realized security.)

You still fail to address the idea that you're in favor of disarming people before the gov't has proven a case against them and who aren't even in police custody! (Since they'd be unarmed if they were.)

"The greater difficulty in getting at a judge with your bare hands, compared to getting off a shot or two before someone stops you, doesn't play any role in people's decisions? Not buying it."

Yeah, me either. So now you've conceded that people, even angry ones or ones who are (GASP! THE HORROR!) carrying a firearm, are likely to act in their own RATIONAL self-interest. Given that they'll act rationally - as your example shows - I hope you can see the reasonableness of this statement:

Your alleged "angry, irrational shooter" would be even LESS inclined to take a shot at the judge if the odds were that 50% of the people in the room would produce a firearm and shoot at them with it in return. (As they would also be operating in rational self-defense, concerned that they would be the next target.) Deterrence of crime is only limited to armed police officers when everyone else is disarmed. Pretty obvious, right?

Or to echo your argument, people wouldn't take into account getting shot before trying to shoot up a courthouse? Not buying it.

"Thanks for the walk down memory lane. Care to call me a terrorist? That's another oldie but goodie." I've never called you a terrorist. What kind of Blue State vs. Red State red herring are you trying to conjure up? You kind of lost me there, but, here's a quick walk-thru so that you know that my using "the real world" wasn't code for an insult:

You asked if I'd read any newspapers in a manner that was essentially a claim that reading newspaper accounts of courthouse violence gives one greater insight into courthouse violence than someone who has spent time in courtrooms.

I responded that you should try living it (even tho that's anecdotal evidence, as I admitted - but so are newspaper accounts) and suggested that you take into account the media filter you're viewing the world through. Re-read what I wrote. I assure you I was not claiming you don't live in the real world. Poor choice of words, I apologize if you mistook it for some sort of coded insult. Even so, I can't see how you might equate that to being called a terrorist.

On the other hand, I often see you respond in this fashion. You've slugged it out fairly admirably thus far, admittedly, but things are looking a bit grim now. This is usually that time, once you've been backed into a logical corner, it's often followed by a dash to another thread for a fresh start.

"In the real world, court cases and the imposition of force by the government to resolve disputes, determine people's futures, and impose punishment, is one of the most heated, potentially dangerous activities in our culture."

Now whose using coded insults on purpose? Never mind that, I'm not insulted, just amused. On to the meat of your statement...

That's the proper role of gov't in your opinion? Just want to make sure that I understand you as being on the record that the reason governing can be so dangerous to those governing is that it's because it is imposing by force, determining people's futures, and imposing punishment.

I guess if I believed that the role of gov't is to impose in such a manner, it would make sense that the only way to do that would be to make sure those being imposed on are unarmed. Regardless of whether they're likely to react rationally OR irrationally.

"This is what makes an imbalance of power between the state and the public in court so important - the adjucation and use of coercion that are necessary parts of the application of the law require it."

And this is why only "authorities" should have guns, right? You ARE the one who argued earlier in this thread that "The argument against firearms in courthouses, and in favor of tasers and big sticks, applies equally well to homes."

So that it's easier and less dangerous for them to impose on the public by force. I can think of numerous instances of dictatorships and other forms of tyranny that operate exactly thus. Obviously our Constitution is intended to avoid this.

People should rationally submit to the rule of law because it is just and fair, not because the gov't has all the firepower. In a free society, an ethical gov't does not need to fear normal citizens - even those engaged in heated legal battles. But the funny thing is that ultimately, it's the people here who rule. So what are you afraid of joe? You seem to be afraid of the people you think gov't should be imposing upon. I think you'd be right, because that's pretty much ALL of us. You can't hire enough cops to stop everyone, but good luck with that.

I prefer the US model, in which the goal is to have minimal gov't interference and NOT by force unless absolutely unavoidable because we're dealing with people who have no respect for the rule of law to begin with. In this model, you don't remove people's rights just because they're charged but not yet convicted of a crime. In an eminent domain case, this is doubly so, since there is no crime being alleged against the individual.

Sorry this is long...