In the case of the VT tragedy and the increase in shootings in Boston over the last two years, Democrats have called for stricter gun owner ship laws. Forget the fact that the vast majority of the weapons used in these shootings are obtained from illegal means. Instead of doing things like increase the penalties for trafficking illegal weapons or possessing illegal weapons or committing a crime with a weapon, the Democrats response is more restrictions on legal gun ownership. One example:
Mayor Thomas M. Menino urged the Bush administration yesterday to tighten gun control laws and stand up to the National Rifle Association in the aftermath of the massacre of 32 people at Virginia Tech.
“The federal government could take action . . . by getting the NRA to back off these issues,” Menino said in a telephone interview. “Young kids have guns today. . . . How is this being perpetrated throughout the country? It’s not just a Boston problem. It’s a national problem.”….
Menino pointed out that the guns Seung-Hui Cho used to kill 32 people and then himself were bought legally in Virginia. He said looser gun laws in Southern states such as Virginia cause the streets of Boston to be flooded with illegal guns….
“A young person goes to one of those Southern states with liberal gun laws and brings them to Massachusetts and sells them out of trucks,” Menino said. “Why isn’t the president doing something about it?”
So instead of punishing the people that are selling the guns illegally, Menino wishes to limit access to guns by people who are not breaking the law. Does this really make sense to anyone?
Yes, the tragedy at VT was committed with legally purchased guns. However, the problem in this case was that the required background checks did not reveal the mental health issues of this nut job. We should fix the gap in the system that didn’t allow the gun dealer to know about the mental health issues, not further limit access to guns to law abiding citizens.
In the case of the “Ban the Bag” debate, a Boston city councilor is seeking to ban plastic grocery bags due to the littering of the bags. Again, why ban the product that is more environmentally friendly instead of punishing the offender. If this is to push an environmental agenda, fine. But then the focus should be to ban (or tax them as Bob suggested) all disposable bags, paper and plastic. However, that is not the reason the city councilor gave for the ban:
“They end up everywhere,” said Councilor Robert Consalvo . “They blow in trees, they’re floating in Boston Harbor . . . They’re an environmental nightmare. We need to rid our city of these plastic bags.”
As pointed out by stomv, the environmentalist’s mantra is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. If this is an environmental agenda then the push should be to reduce the use of all disposable bags. If this is being perused due to the littering aspect then why isn’t the focus on the litter?
Finally, this brings me to the latest topic from today’s Globe:
Lawmakers are exploring whether to push for a statewide ban on pit bulls, with some urban legislators saying Massachusetts needs to overhaul dog- control laws to reduce attacks by combative canines.
Again, instead of blaming people who breed animals to be aggressive, either for fighting or as attack/guard dogs, Democrats are suggesting we ban pit bulls and other “aggressive” breads like Rottweilers. By the way, Rottweilers were originally bread as herding dogs, not guard dogs; they are not aggressive by nature. The same holds true for pit bulls, Doberman pinchers, etc.
“The number of pit bull attacks raises concerns,” said Representative Vincent A. Pedone, Democrat of Worcester, who has informally discussed a ban with committee members. “These dogs are kept specifically for fighting or as weapons, and I don’t think they have any place in civilized society.”
He rejected arguments that dog owners are more to blame for problem animals.
“That’s the same argument that opponents of restrictive gun laws give us: It’s the person, not the gun,” he said.
“But the fact of the matter is that if you reduce the availability of a weapon, whether it’s a pit bull or gun, you reduce the number of incidents.”
Nice “fact of the matter.” I would like to see some statistics on that. Here in Mass we have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet gun violence is increasing.
With guns, pit bulls (not so much for plastic bags) or any other contraband, if you restrict legal access to these items, this will not deter people who are willing to break the law. Criminals will continue to acquire guns while law abiding people will not be allowed to own them. The same already holds true for banned animals. Alligators are illegal in Mass but are often found during drug busts.
It seems to me that Democrats do not want to hold the person(s) that actually commit these crimes responsible. Whether that be litters, the shooters or irresponsible dog owners. Why is there this reluctance to blame the offender?
Cross Posted on Red Mass Group.
While some of your reactions, particularly on the middle issue, are good, the problem becomes enforcement. While some folks — mainly Republicans — will write any check that leads to people being given uniforms and guns, fiscal responsibility sometimes requires that social nuisances be restricted at a more vulnerable and efficient point.
<
p>
While funding squads of litter cops could arguably be more fair-minded than taxing the bags, the amount of money needed to make a serious dent in that litter would be enormous. It’s similar to our semi-annual warnings that the cops are cracking down on jaywalking.
<
p>
For example, it might be fairer to allow anyone to buy anything, and then have law enforcement go after people who abuse that opportunity after the fact. But is that the most efficient use of money?
When I was in Germany, at the supermarket you had to pay anywhere from 5-15 cents per bag. This is a great way to make people get re-usable bags made out of linen, or to just re-use bags they’ve bought. It also reduces overhead for the company.
<
p>
Another thing is the “Pfand”. It’s the same as a bottle deposit, but instead of 5 cents it was 25 or 50 depending on the size of the bottle. I remember I went to a party that the Engineering School of the University I went to threw, and the mixed drinks (I was doing Zombies all night) were the expected 4 euros, but I had to pay 5 euros up front for just the cup. When I would get another Zombie I would hand in my cup and get a new Zombie for the 4 euros, and at the end of the night, or whenever I decided to quit boozing, I would turn the cup in and get my 5 back.
<
p>
You had better believe at the end of the night there weren’t any cups on the ground. It would be like dropping a 5 spot and walking away. Those, I think, are great ways to reduce some needless pollution.
I am all for trying this to get people to think more “green”.
<
p>
But the problem is that the people who have pushed for that measure have stated they are doing it because of the littering.
but even after I was hammered and barely able to take the tram home, I still turned that cup in.
Obviously, it’s illegal to shoot people, and people who do so should be punished. No one disagrees about that.
<
p>
Some people want to go further and take sensible measures to prevent tragedies from happening in the first place. How do you feel about that?
That’s why it’s tragic.
<
p>
That said, I think the answer doesn’t lie in taking guns out of people’s hands, but changing the people who hold the guns. Murders have happend since the dawn of mankind. Whether its a rock, stick, spear, sword, crossbow, musket, or handgun, there has always been murder.
<
p>
I take issue with the democrats who think that gun control will solve a problem that’s been around for thousands of years. We’ve only had ready and accessible guns for a couple hundred, so I fail to see a correlation.
<
p>
We need an act of culture, not an act of Congress.
You can’t prevent all tragedies, but you can prevent a lion’s share of them, if you want.
<
p>
I wasn’t aware that someone losing touch with reality and hosing down dozens of innocents is a problem that’s been around for thousands of years. How do you massacre over 30 people in one day with a knife?
Sabutai – my great-grandfather was a missionary (not RC, but independent, so not under King Leopold’s control) in the Belgian Congo, and tried to give asylumn to people being forced to work on the Belgian rubber plantations or have their hands chopped off. Or have their son forced to rape their mother at knifepoint. And so on.
<
p>
Armenia vs. Turkey. Stalin vs. Russians. Catherine deMedici vs. the French Jews. And so on.
<
p>
Sabutai – history is a dark and scary place. The crossbow was considered as much a WMD as biological warfare in it’s day. And the same truth prevails down from Cain – it’s the wielder, not the weapon.
You know you’ve touched a sore point when you get off-topic lectures from Republicans.
<
p>
PP, we both know the subject at hand is gun control for individuals, not disarming the government. What you describe are violent, repressive regimes and not crime prevention and reduction. A different kettle of fish altogether. So don’t get pompous to me about history being a dark and scary place just because I want the future to be a little less so.
<
p>
And since I’m here, I’ll talk to JK. For someone who dismisses crime prevention with an airy “you can’t prevent them”, you’re suddenly awfully sensitive. Of course the ideal is to have no casualties from crazy murderers. But (some of us) live in the real world. For me, I’d rather have something whereby 3 people die in a knife attack than 33 who go down to a crazy gunman. Crazy murderers do less damage if they don’t have guns, and I’m glad we agree on that point. I guess the only question now is — how do you intend to make that a reality? Litter prevention squads?
<
p>
Honest question, I don’t see how this relates to what I posted.
<
p>
To respond to the rest of your post. If your goal is less people dying, why not more guns then? Arguably, if someone had a gun in one of those classes, they could have shot the psycho and ended the whole ordeal and prevented more deaths.
Lots of pro-gun people have said: what if some of the students/faculty were armed, wouldn’t that have stopped the ordeal?
<
p>
Consider the possibilities.
<
p>
1. Someone had a gun, and started firing back at the psycho. They’d likely shoot someone else too, in the crossfire. A third person, from another room, would have run in, and been confused as to who the original “psycho” was and who was the person returning fire. The whole thing would have turned into a firefight, and no one would know who was shooting at who…
<
p>
2. The police storm the building, except that instead of one person shooting, now there’s a whole bunch of people shooting all over the place, and no one’s really sure who is shooting, where, and why. Innocent bystanders get killed as the police assume everyone firing a gun is a “psycho” and proceed to shoot/kill everyone with a weapon.
<
p>
Your solution sounds plausible, until you think about it.
<
p>
In your original entry, you also stated that MA has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet gun violence is rising. Perhaps it is, but your statement is intentionally misleading. You have to look at the rise compared to the rise in other states, similar in make-up, but with less strict gun laws to make a fair comparison.
<
p>
Yikes!
But then maybe a ricochet off the – and then maybe somebody might’a – and then, an’ then….
<
p>
Hey if you have a cogent argument to make, please, make the argument.
<
p>
But pulling ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals out of your … doesn’t qualify as reality based commentary.
Lots of guns + lots of confusion + bullets firing everywhere = disaster.
<
p>
How’s that?
<
p>
Are you saying that hypotheticals where innocent bystanders get shot in a hail of cross-fire is unrealistic?
<
p>
We can all come up with hypotheticals … but anyone who has ever seen guns fired knows that situations escalate out of control VERY quickly.
<
p>
That’s why SWAT teams, where members all know HOW to use guns safely, train together, so that they know how to respond in a situation. They don’t just learn how to fire a gun.
<
p>
Nothing could be more dangerous than a college campus with guns everywhere.
There was a lot of confusion. There were bullets flying everywhere. It was a disaster
<
p>
Heck no.
Hypotheticals can mean anything you want them to, because they’re just made up.
<
p>
Let me ask you this; can you cite an actual example of such a thing happening? Where well meaning but awkward citizens mowed down innocents in a hail of bullets while attempting to stop a mass killing?
<
p>
True.
However, when they responded to VT, there were already more than 30 people dead.
<
p>
SWAT teams are created to end hostage situations. Virginia Tech was a massacre situation.
Once the killing began, the only people in position to end it were the victims themselves.
<
p>
Sad, but true.
at Appalachian law school. What happened was:
<
p>
Crazy started to go on rampage.
<
p>
Legally armed student pulled out gun and shot him.
<
p>
Rampage stopped.
<
p>
There is precedent.
Actually, two legally armed students approached the shooter, guns drawn. Shooter, realizing he was finished, dropped his weapon. Three students tackled and subdued now-disarmed shooter.
but the crux of the story is the rampage was stopped.
<
p>
thank you for pointing out the facts. I thought I had read that the perpertrator was shot in the buttocks.
Sabutai – that was the question, from your comment, that my ‘off-topic’ post responded to. And I stand by my statement – it’s the wielder, not the weapon.
But governments acquire weapons in a different fashion than individuals, so I don’t see how gun control would stop a government. I’d say stopping international leaders who are also crazed murderers requires a whole different approach than a Brady Bill.
Paraphrasing Eddie Izzard:
<
p>
“Killing people in your own country…we’re sort of fine with that really. Where Hitler went wrong was killing people in another country — can’t have that. You start doing that, and we’ll have to stop you…after a couple years.”
You get a six (wish I could give a 10) for quoting my favorite comedian. Spot on.
You’re right. Before guns someone could probably only kill 3 to 12 people with a knife, sword, spear, bow and arrow, etc. before they get tired. Mass murder is the most exhausting thing one can participate in. Next to soccer (snoochie poochies for steeling a line from Kevin Smith).
<
p>
Come on. That is really what you are going to argue “How do you massacre over 30 people in one day with a knife?” Then answer this, since volume seems to be your criteria for a “tragedy”, how many people have to be killed before it qualifies? 5? 10? 20? 33 seems to do it for you in the VT case.
I have yet to see any real data that says if you limit lawful access to guns for self defense and sport, it results in less murders. If people want to prevent the next tragedy like VT, limiting access to guns will not do that. The opposite may even be true. I’m sure you have herd the examples of cases where guns being present have prevented further tragedy.
<
p>
As JoeTS points out, murders have always happened for a variety of reasons and by a variety of means.
<
p>
Why not try to prevent the next crime by making examples of those who committed the last crime?
are to change the laws that would have a mentally ill person being able to purchase guns. That’s what I have read across the board as a topic. That’s something I think you’ve agreed with. I welcome you to reason. Quoting Menino on this topic and pawning it off as all Democrats is a bit suspect as you probably well know. Menino and guns “from other states” has been his typical MO to place blame elsewhere. It’s more of a CYA statement rather than a democratic stand. On the other hand our friends from the right wing have blamed democrats for the shooting and that we’re too liberal now since a few months ago we elected democrats in the house and senate. Then it’s the liberal and they hate god so we get this for punishment stupidity. Search on some Newt comments.
First, “Quoting Menino on this topic and pawning it off as all Democrats is a bit suspect as you probably well know.” Funny, when I say the same thing about conservatives and George Bush I am told that I am redefining the meaning of conservative or that since he ran and won as a Repub I have to live with him. And W has a lot of specific examples that can be pointed to as not being handled as a conservative would. For instance affirmative action, government spending, increasing the size of government, his immigration policy, etc. What is it that Mumbles does that disqualifies him as a Dem?
<
p>
Second, “The point I see being raised by Democrats are to change the laws that would have a mentally ill person being able to purchase guns.” If that all it was I would not be concerned. The current laws already state that the mentally ill should not own guns. The problem is that there is no national data base to track who qualifies as mentally ill and should not own guns. Oh, but only if that were where Dems were heading with gun control. They have used the VT tragedy to call for a renew on the ban on assault weapons. Do 9mm and 22s qualify as assault weapons? Nope. There are numerous Dems speaking out for gun control even though the most prominent Dems appear to be a little gun shy on the topic (pun intended).
JK, you contend that “the most prominent Dems appear to be a little gun shy on the topic” — isn’t that the opposite of your original post?
<
p>
Wouldn’t a fairer set-up in your original post look like more this?
<
p>
by prominent Dems I was referring to John Kerry, the Clintons, Obama, Al Gore. As I pointed out, Menino and others, including some BMG posters, have been calling for stricter gun laws.
<
p>
But fair point and thanks for calling me on it. Only makes me a better in the long run.
You are comparing a mayor to the president. I think there’s a difference in discussing what a party stands for when discussing the president. Also, discussing a national topic and choosing one particular city’s mayor to label all democrats is weak. So Dubya and you not so good huh, then you voted for Kerry in the last election? Good for you!
A republican tactic? 😉
<
p>
Geez, I’d at least think you’d have gone with the “blame al qaeda, not bush for iraq” argument under that tagline.
Isn’t your post akin to those repubs who critized the Boston City council for dealing with the bags while murders are being committed in Boston?
<
p>
We can’t focus on a multitude of issues?
People litter, people kill. It’s people who are the problem. Getting rid of bags, guns, SUV’s, vicious dogs will not solve any problem. The problem is human kind.
<
p>
I’m at somewhat of a loss as to why this portion of the equation is such a mystery.
<
p>
We now have a society where people are now no longer responsible for anything. Progressive’s got what they wanted. What’s the complaint?
You’re right, what progressive’s wanted was for people not be responsible for their own actions. Which is why we’re al lso thrilled with George W. Bush’s “it was like this when I got here” approach to governing.
<
p>
The last thing politicians want to do (democrats especially) is to ask people to modify their behavior.
<
p>
Far preferable to tell your base that the other side needs to modify their behavior.
or pit bulls or plastic bags. All sound like a good idea to me.
And yes some dog breeds are innately more aggressive than others, even in some cases when well trained. Yes, training will make the vast majorities of pit bulls, etc. safe, but the fact remains that not everyone is equipped to do that training. There are a lot of people buying these dogs that have no business owning a toy poodle, much less a rottweiler. It’s nice to say the onus is on the dog owner, but that doesn’t help the person who got bit by one, does it? The fact remains that any dog can bite, but if a Rottweiler bites it’s going to be a lot worse than my Silky Terrier.
<
p>
And in terms of paper vs. plastic, why not just ban em both? Let’s all go the Cosco route, use the packages that the are already being used to bring the goods to the store. Or, the bring-your-own-tote route; Stop and Shop has cheap bags that are meant to be used over and over again. Buy a couple of those and there’s no need to worry about paper or plastic at all. Who says we can’t radically change the way we bring our groceries home?
<
p>
And handguns in anyone’s hands are dangerous. There are about 20,000 hand-gun related deaths every year, from murder to suicide. Not all of them are used from ilegal guns. Society in general just doesn’t need them; let’s join the civilized world and get rid of them, or limit them to gun clubs and shooting ranges.
Cars, SUVs, private property. All sounds a little too Brave New World or 1984 to me.
<
p>
About the dogs, your link doesn’t back you up:
<
p>
<
p>
Again, it is due to poor training and handling. Nothing to do with the breed. Some breeds show up more in statistical analysis for a variety of reasons. A large number of pit bulls are owned by irresponsible handlers that end up attacking people. I would be more for requiring dog owners to participate in some sort of minimal training rather then banning specific breeds.
<
p>
I have already addressed your point about the bags. In short, I would be for a ban/tax on all disposable bags, paper and plastic, in favor of reusable bags. But that was not the stated intent of the Boston City councilor that proposed the ban. He did it because of the littering.
<
p>
Finally about the guns. The founding fathers would disagree with you on that point. They felt the right to keep and bare arms was crucial to a democracy and many of us today still agree. As for your “civilized world” line, your mother most have said at least once, because they all have, if your friends were jumping off a bridge would you do it too?
The Founding Fathers inserted the right to have armed militias, not give everyone guns. Don’t take my word for it, though, because it’s the Supreme Court’s interpretation that the federal government has the right to place gun controls.
<
p>
And on the dogs… God knows there are any number of reasons why dogs bite, but certain breeds do so more often than others. Are those breeds likely to have worse dog owners? You show me the evidence that proves that and maybe I’ll take your word for it. What I think is more likely is that lots of breeds bite at similar rates, but it’s the Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, etc. that are by far the most dangerous.
<
p>
With that in mind, whether or not it’s the dog breed or human owner doesn’t matter. If there’s a bad dog-owner who owns a Yorkshire Terrier and that terrier bites, no big deal. If there’s a bad dog owner who has a Pit Bull and the Pit Bull bites, someone can get seriously hurt and scarred for life, if not worse. You say that’s the dog owner’s fault – and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. However, it’s a reality. Again, it doesn’t matter if it’s the dog owner’s fault, it’s those dogs that are especially dangerous and ought to be targeted in limiting who gets to have them.
<
p>
To say I favor outright banning Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, etc. is going a bit far – but I wouldn’t allow any old Joe to get one. I think people who want those dogs should a) have to enroll them in serious training classes, b) have experience raising dogs, c) know what the hell to do in case their dog ever really does bite someone and d) have a home equipped to handle such a dog (fence, large yard, etc.)
<
p>
My brother has a Rottweiler, but he has experience with that breed, enrolled the dog in obedience training as a puppy, has a yard large enough for it to run around and expel some of his aggression and he has an electric fense. An important fact, though, is his dog is more aggressive than mine – which is one reason why it’s important he gets his “work” (which is something most good dog owners know).
<
p>
However, very few people in this state could match my brother’s profile and I don’t think it’s necessarily safe for those people to have that breed. If their dogs bit someone, it would be the master’s fault, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s the Rottweiler or Pit Bull doing the biting – with more serious consequences than other breeds (and at higher rates than other breeds, for whatever reason)… so limiting them is a necessary thing in my opinion. Only the best dog trainers should be able to have those kinds of breeds.
<
p>
Finally, I find this whole attack on Democrats to be disengenuous at best. Don’t get me wrong, they do it, but so do Republicans. In fact, Republicans are kings of this kind of thing. Hello, the Iraq war?!? While you’re worried about plastic bags, I’m worried about the war – the one we invaded because of “weapons of mass destruction.” Riiight. What’s worse, a Democrat exaggerating about plastic bags to get rid of them – or the President exaggerating about Iraq war evidence. I find this post absurd. Seriously, who cares? You agree with the politician on principal, just not with his reasons why. We’re not all supposed to get to the same place using the same road – we all think differently.
The second amendment wasn’t only for armed militias and you know it. The second amendment was included in a bill of rights. A bill of rights that limited the power of the national government in all 10 cases. And gave right to the people
<
p>
The word regulated in 18th century usage meant well stocked, not regulated as we mean it today.
<
p>
The reason for the second amendement and an armed citizenry was to be a check on the power of the federal government. The revolution in this country was finally fought when the British Authorities tried to take away the colonials arms. First in Portsmouth harbor where there was a minor skirmish in 1774, then in all out warfare in Lexington and Concord in 1775.
<
p>
You may feel good about rewriting history but it is still rewritten history.
<
p>
The Supreme Courts we’ve had for the last few decades beleive the constitution is a “living breathing document” that’s pure banality and hogwash. I’m glad we are finally getting back to an original intent view of the Constitution and would expect gun control laws to be struck down as unconsitutional as the DC law was just a few weeks ago.
It’s not exactly a liberal bastion anymore – and hasn’t been that way for quite some time. The Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of the constition – they do make mistakes, but gun control is one of the simple cases where they’ve gotten it right, for a very long time now. I’m not “rewriting history” any more than you are. Furthermore, the definition of “regulated” doesn’t change the fact that it refers to the military, and thus you are all the more wrong.
meant local groupings of people armed for their own local defense. Not the National Guard. It wasn’t the military in 18th century usage.
<
p>
The founders wanted everyone to have access to guns, because if everyone had access to guns then the government would be kept in check.
<
p>
The Supreme Court is very recently contructionist. Thank you George W. Bush. and looks to stay that way for a long time. And it looks like a lot of the gun laws will be struck down, starting with the anti-handgun laws in DC.
I primarily agree with the responses by EaBo and geo999 so I will let those be.
<
p>
What I would like to address is your final statement. I did not intend a disingenuous attack on Democrats. As I stated in the first line of the post, this was something I noticed and it was bothering me. As far as repubs doing it too, this is likely in their bag of tricks too.
<
p>
However I don’t think the war in Iraq applies. In my opinion and from my memory we were told that Iraq represented a clear and present danger (be it WMD or what ever) to the USA. It now appears that we were lied to about this.
<
p>
As for this post being absurd and a waste of time when there are other important issues. Well, there will almost always be a couple of more important issues. Be it a war, national health care, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, what ever. That doesn’t mean other things should be dropped from the discussion because there are other pressing issues.
<
p>
This post was just some thoughts I had. Something I would discuss with buddies over a couple of scotches or beers. If you don’t find it interesting or worth discussing, then don’t. But I do appreciate your insite on the matter and enjoyed the discussion.
(emphasis mine)
<
p>
I have carried legally for nearly thirty years. And I defy anyone to make the case that society was less safe because of it.
For example, someone – through some freak occurence – gets their hand on it and shoots someone.
<
p>
I know of someone who, after decades of using butter knives, managed to slice their finger off with a butter knive. How is that possible? I don’t know, but it happened.
<
p>
You’ve had a gun all your life. You’re obviously very experienced with it. Does that mean some freakish thing couldn’t happen? No. It damn well could. These things happen every day.
<
p>
I’ve driven now for about 8 years. I’ve never had an accident, speeding ticket or moving violation. I tend to drive near the speed limit and don’t use cell phones or other distractions. Tommorow, I could get in my car to drive home and sneeze, crash into a giant SUV and die, despite the fact that I’m more or less an expert in driving route 24 and 93. Stranger things have happened.
<
p>
Unless you’re a police officer or in a similar position, you don’t need a hand gun. Even if there were an instance where you’d want to “defend” yourself or someone else with your gun – there’s as much a chance that you’d hurt an innocent bystander as there is you’d hit your target, even if you’re an expert shot. Being in such a situation would probably be unlike any you’ve ever had; surely, you wouldn’t be as accurate as normal. Furthermore, you can’t control the movements of other people, etc. Believe me when I say this, I don’t feel safer because you’re equipped with a gun (unless, like I said, you’re something akin to a police officer).
How very 1930s Germany of you.
I don’t like your words so I’ll rate you a zero. Real adult of you Ryan. That’s the blogosphere equivalent of “I’m taking my ball and going home”.
<
p>
It’s how I feel that matters to me.
<
p>
Your hypotheticals that have no basis in my reality.
Just like the one posted upstream, you presuppose a worst-case scenario as being most likely, and then use that likelihood to justify your desire to control my behavior.
<
p>
As I’m certain, from checking out your blog, you would be highly offended if I used similar faulty logic to limit your liberties.
<
p>
Alone in my home or business? In my car? On a dark street, late at night?
Your statement assumes a high degree of incompetence and irresponsibility on my part.
<
p>
I’m rather doubtful that an armed policeman will be at my side, should I find myself under threat.
I much prefer having the option of preserving my own life to depending on the slim chance that others will be in a position to do so.
I am a responsible American Citizen, and it is not your place to be telling me what I do or do not need.
<
p>
That’s a nice tagline, but how far are you willing to take it? Do you agree with mandatory driving licenses? How about if I want to fly a plane around? Should I need a license for that? Why not let me own chemical weapons? After all, I’m a responsible American citizen.
<
p>
The point is, you have to draw lines somewhere, so general and absolute phrases like “the government shouldn’t tell me what to do” don’t work in real life as absolutes.
You need a license to drive because you don’t own the roads, the government or other private parties do.
<
p>
You need a license to fly a plane because, again, you fly it over other people’s property. If you owned enough land that you could fly it only over your land then I would argue you don’t need a license for that.
<
p>
As far a chemical weapons, that goes to the second amendment debate. Many argue that the amendment is intended to include armed citizens needed to overthrow the government should they become tyrannical. Would chemical weapons fall into that, maybe.
Yes.
Get a permit for pepper spray.
That is not even close what I wrote. But I agree with it.
The Supreme Court doesn’t feel as if you have any particular right, as found in the Bill of Rights, to have guns.
<
p>
<
p>
Far from it. Indeed, I suggested that crazy things can happen. I didn’t say it was likely to happen. It probably won’t happen today, tommorow, or maybe even ever. But, there are 300 million people living in America and more guns in America than people. Surely, responsible, well trained adults have crazy things happening to them every day. Those crazy things, including gun accidents or moments of mentally losing it, can happen to anyone. It’s not likely to happen to you, but it will happen. The less hand guns, the less likely they’ll happen.
<
p>
<
p>
What the heck are you talking about? I ASSUMED you were highly trained, not incompetent. Reading comprehension for the win. Sheesh.
<
p>
<
blockquote>I’m rather doubtful that an armed policeman will be at my side, should I find myself under threat.
<
blockquote>
<
p>
What’s more likely, that Virginia Tech wouldn’t have happened if gun control laws were even weaker – or that there’d be even more of them every year. And even if someone was armed when the shooter started his massacre, what’s more likely: they shoot the shooter and don’t hit innocent bystanders… or lots of innocent people would have died from people attempting “self defense?”
<
p>
The more guns that are on the street, the more people who are going to die by them. The statistics are irrefutable. In countries like France, Germany and the UK – where hand guns are banned – there’s about 350-450 hand gun related deaths per year. In America? 15,000-20,000.
I would have agreed with you on pit bulls before I got my little Mikey last year. The poor little guy showed up in my yard freezing, emaciated and close to death. He was just a puppy of about seven months. He had obviously been dumped in the woods behind my house to fend for himself. It took me two hours to coax him to come to me because he was so afraid. Once he realized I meant him no harm, he jumped into my lap and cried mournfully as if to tell me how awful it had been. I’ve had dogs all my life, and I’ve got to tell you that Mikey is the sweetest, smartest and gentlest dog I’ve ever had. He has absolutely no aggression in him. He is the ultimate beta dog. Even the cats get to tell him what to do, and he just goes along with whatever he’s told. He has played with tiny little dogs very gently and rolls over on his back in submissiveness with bigger dogs. He’s now well over a year old, and I have yet to see him angered. He’s all love, all the time. So, I don’t feel that my well trained, gentle little dog should be subjected to a ban. I doubt that he’s just an exception. I’m sure he was thrown away because he wasn’t a fighter. It’s the awful people who want aggressive, vicious dogs who are the problem — not the dogs.
My vet told me that Labs are responsible for more biting incidents per year than any other breed. I’m going to do some research to see if I can find the statistics.
What’s your position on the legalization of drugs? Because it sounds like you’d be in favor of it — the act of taking drugs is not inherently bad, it’s just that people might do bad things if they’re high on drugs, or might do bad things to get their next fix.
<
p>
So is the new Republican position on drugs to legalize them, and go after the crimes instead?
<
p>
How about kids drinking? Seems like another thing that should be legal, shouldn’t it?
First, I am not a repub. I am a conservative independent that tends to lean more towards being a libertarian.
<
p>
Second, I think the first answers your questions. For drugs, yes, most should be legal. There is little difference between drinking a nice single malt and smoking a blunt.
<
p>
For the kids, yes to some extend. In Europe, kids are given beer and wine with dinner and they develope a respect for those things. Here we treat them as contraban that just builds up interest in drinking. I don’t think it is just a quinky dink that alcoholism rates are lower in societies that are more open to the consumption of alcohol under supervision at earlier ages.
You say that only “most” drugs should be legal. What drugs should NOT be legal, and why?
<
p>
And yes, this fits into your general point. Why not legalize ALL drugs, if it’s not the drug that should be blamed, but the people distributing/abusing them? I sense a contradiction.
Weed – yes, legalize it
Hash – definately
Coke – Sure
Smack – Yes but some laws about the clean use of needles and sharing due to public health concerns.
Crystal meth – not at this time. The manufacuturing of this is too dangerous. Maybe once those kinks are worked out.
GHB – No because I am not aware of any use other then date rape
X – yup
Acid – why not
mushrooms – yeah, but they taste so bad I imagine if these other things were legal no one would do them
<
p>
Did I leave any major drugs out?
<
p>
Of course all this is predicated on some laws about minimum ages for buying and operating of cars and other equipment.
OK, so in reality you support legalization of all drugs, with perhaps a few exceptions that don’t really seem to fit with your philosophy (why should the government be telling people that they can’t use GHB because most people use it to date rape? Maybe some just want to get high at parties?).
<
p>
At least that clarifies that, and is more consistent. However, I would assume that you agree there are good reasons to ban at least SOME activities that MAY (but not necessarily do) harm others? Your prohibition on manufacturing of crystal meth seems to be one.
Do people use GHB to get high? I thought it was only used to rape people.
Nope, it’s a rave drug as well.
<
p>
Under your philosophy, it would seem rather strange to make distinctions based upon what people tend to do with the drug after they use it. After all, plenty of people get high on coke and then make it (much) more likely that they will rape/murder/get in a car and kill someone. Why isn’t that reason enough to ban it?
I am a republican and believe that
<
p>
1) Drugs should be legal. But I shouldn’t have to pay for your stupidity in using them. Prohibition didn’t work in the 1920’s and it isn’t working now. Drug laws came into vogue during the prohibition craze as well.
<
p>
2) The drinking age should at the least be lowered to 18. And for beer and wine could be lowered even more under the supervision of parents.
if drugs were legal, because the price would not be artificially high (pardon the pun)
<
p>
So do you think (for example) public hospitals should refuse to give emergency treatment to uninsured drug users (suffering from, say, a drug overdose)? This would be a good example of paying for someone else’s stupidity (through taxes that go to the hospital), so I’m interested to hear your response.
They should charge the uninsured person for this. At full rate and garnish wages if need be to pay for it.
<
p>
It’s the same thing as NH new “unprepared hiker” rescue law.
A 14 year old could booze it up with their parents, in their own homes, if they wanted. As I understand that, it wouldn’t violate a single law.
Whether or not the government chooses to enforce that law is another question. But on its face it is against the law to provide any minor with alcohol at any time, unless for religious practice, for example at seder or holy communion.
where we have a law that a parent or legal guardian can provide alcohol to a minor in the privacy of their home.
<
p>
My parents allowed me to drink since I was 15, it allowed me to learn my limits and took a lot of the social taboo (omg im drinking I should drink EVERYTHING) factor out of it.
that was the law in Massachusetts. I looked it up. Thanks for letting me know. I never would have thought that was the law.
Alaska, Hawai, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Lousiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnisotta, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado, Iowa, Montana or the District of Columbia. While I’m at it, I’m not terribly familiar with the laws of Puerto Rico. Also, I don’t know too much about Canada, England and other mainly English-speaking countries (even if Quebec, most people know English =p), but probably more about them than 49 of the 50 states.
<
p>
That said, in Massachusetts – the state I’ve always lived in – a parent can give their kids a beer or glass of wine if they wanted, in the privacy of their own homes, no problems or questions asked.
but why, Bob, are you frontpaging a post, crossposted on RMG, which basically attacks Democrats, Democratic frames, and makes faulty arguments? I understand recommending it so that the point gets made, but it seems like you guys are frontpaging pretty much everything lately…
so I think I’ll stick just with my comment about attacking Democrats. Also, I’ve got a final tomorrow, so I shouldn’t be on BMG anyway… so because I’m busy, and this will be my last comment of the night, I’m just gonna focus on why this is just a poor job attacking Democrats. So for the moment, let’s even assume you’re right on the issues at hand.
<
p>
The general thrust of your post is that Democrats, as a whole, want to ban the thing that causes harm, rather than dealing with human behavior.
<
p>
In your article you mention the city council’s ban on plastic bags. But you also quote Bob, who wants to tax the bags, and stomv, who in the comments said that he’d put a huge tax on the bags. Certainly, these two BMGers are Democrats?
<
p>
You talk about how Democrats are more inclined to ban pit bulls, rather than curbing bad dog owner behavior, and quote the sponsor Rep. Pedone. But the committee’s chairman, Senator James E. Timilty, also a Democrat, said he would oppose any ban on pit bulls.
<
p>
The other thing is that the problem of blaming objects, not people, isn’t limited to Democrats. I guess a parallel I could give from the left would be Republicans who don’t want to distribute condoms in schools because they might “lead to sex.” That puts the blame on the condom, and doesn’t deal with actual teen behavior. But can I call that a Republican tactic? Um, not really.
<
p>
Your title is, “Placing the Blame in the Wrong Place, a Democratic Tactic?” … Answer: No. Placing the blame in the wrong place? Wrong. A Democratic tactic? Not really.
<
p>
The point is: even if you’re right about the issues of plastic bags and pit bulls, it’s disingenuous at best to say that placing the blame in the wrong place is a Democratic trend.
Progressives and not Democrats. As we know progressives are not in favor of all Democrats. Just ask Jim Miceli.
http://richardhowe.c…
I don’t know if Bob, Charley and David remember that post I wrote a while back on BMG (it was around the Boston Latin event), but this is a precise example of that.
<
p>
Here we have a diary clearly meant to bash Democrats – for doing things that is done in all political stripes – and it gets front paged. It would be one thing if these were serious assertions, but they’re anecdotal at best and hypocritical at worst: the Republicans do this stuff every day, but instead it blocks anti-discrimination bills, gets us in wars and is used to target social security and medicare. No one should be stunned when I get email, comments, etc. from bmg and former bmg readers that are frustrated – and I get them every week.
<
p>
I’m not suggesting a ban on republicans. JoeTS and PP would be the first to admit I’m a pretty open-minded guy and LOVE the discourse with people of different political stripes. However, I just don’t see how this post accomplishes anything that – for example – JoeTS would try to accomplish with a post. He’s not going to blatantly do something to attack Democrats, especially if Republicans are doing it even worse (hello, Republicans did the same thing with WMDs to get us in Iraq as some random Democrat is doing with litter to ban plastic bags… which one is worse? Yet, this post is about Democrats…). He’d bring up some kind of hypocrisy, but not anecdotal.
<
p>
The fact is most of these writers have agendas – I don’t care what they say. I’m so sick of the crazy defenses, “oh, but I’m an independent.” Or, “oh, but I’m really a Democrat.” Um.. so is Zell Miller, but that doesn’t mean we should give that loon a platform.
<
p>
Of course, this isn’t my website. I can only make suggestions. You guys are losing loyal readers over this kind of stuff though. BMG may be a still-growing website, but I think it’s a shame to lose community members who are as much a reason for this site’s success as the three editors. Finally, my blog from a while back on this subject asserted that it’s not about rule changes, etc., but just an attitude at the top. Here’s a prime example of what I mean: by front-paging this, it’s alienating readers and at the same time doing the work of enemies of the progressive movement, creating self doubt and dividing to conquer. I just don’t think we should do that kind of stuff.
Do you want an echo chamber or a discussion of issues? I abhor echo chambers.
If everyone thinks the same. Progressives don’t, interestingly enough.
if Bob had thought it’s an interesting piece that promotes a good back and forth (I don’t, but who cares), then recommending it wouldn’t be a bad approach. That way we aren’t just an echo chamber. But frontpaging it — and maybe I’m making too big of a distinction here — seems like it comes from BMG, not just one guy.
I’ve frontpaged progressive posts on Red Mass Group
It’ll get front paged – I promise.
<
p>
Take on 3 issues (I’m not trying to come off like a 10th grade teacher, so forgive me if this comes off that way) that YOU think are so deeply in GOP DNA that they are supported without question or examination.
<
p>
I think that was the purpose here – handgun control, further enviornmental regulation, and general regulation of dogs we don’t like anyway – these issues often get nods without examination for effect. Like the Fluffernutter law, as it were.
<
p>
Go write something – I’d look forward to it.
And really don’t feel the desire now. I love talking to Republicans and appreciate their PoVs, but that doesn’t mean I’m about to jump into the abyss.