An argument I wish the President had addressed last night

[markpkessinger]

Just had a chance to watch the President's town hall on guns, which aired last night. All I can say is, if people watch this, and still think President Obama seeks to take away their guns, then they are believing that because they want to believe it, not because there is any rational basis whatsoever for that belief.

Personally, I wish the President had taken on the "protection" argument, although I understand why he didn't. One woman who questioned him recounted her story of having been raped in her home, and how she now wants a gun to protect herself. Here's the thing about that belief -- and this is a point the Australian comic, Jim Jeffries, makes so brilliantly in his Netflix special, "Bare" -- in order for a gun to be of any use for self-protection in such a circumstance, that gun would have to be both loaded, and be within reach of the person, AT ALL TIMES. I don't know anybody who carries a loaded gun with them 100% of the time, even as they go about the house. And if a person keeps a loaded gun lying around the house and readily accessible, then the risk that a child or someone else might get their hands on it rises exponentially, and that person has thus voided any claim to being a "responsible gun owner." It may be that the woman from the town hall who had been raped derives some sense of security from having a gun on hand, but as a practical matter, that sense of security is entirely illusory.

[Jim Beard]

1. I try to explain this to people myself but it is difficult accept but easy to understand

I would really like to at least have the fingerprint activated pistol available, the idea the NRA has refused to support. At this point any other gun control will be minimal but the new executive oders will help but by no means be a cure as the President stated.

I am afraid all the major gun violence has pushed people the other way.

[hack89]

2. Do you understand why the NRA opposes such guns?

it is not the technology per see, but rather the laws that mandate them. NJ had a law that said that as soon as one such gun was commercially available, then within a certain period only those types guns could be sold or transferred.

That is in essence a back door gun ban - it would make hundreds of millions of guns illegal in short order. And of course the government has no intention of compensating owners for the value of those guns.

You want smart guns? Don't tie them to mandates. Some people will buy them, many will not. But they will be available and over time they will gain more popularity as the technology matures.

[markpkessinger]

7. I think this is more a rationalization of than a reason for the NRA's opposition -- but tell me ...

... why, then, did the NRA attack Colt and Smith and Wesson when they proposed, of their own accord, manufacturing guns with that technology? After all, those were voluntary, by only two manufacturers, and were not done in response to any "mandate."

And how do you explain the NRA's fierce opposition to government funding for any research into gun deaths as a public health issue?

Sorry, but most of us can see the NRA's motives for exactly what they are!

[hack89]

8. Because if Colt or SW marketed those guns it would trigger the state mandate.

understand now?

[markpkessinger]

9. Purely speculative -- and circular -- nonsense . . .

. . . and it doesn't explain their opposition to funding for research into gun deaths as a matter of public health.

[hack89]

10. The NJ law was black and white.

nothing speculative about it. The smart gun legislation that Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts keeps trying to get passed is no speculation.

[markpkessinger]

11. Fine, then oppose those initiatives . . .

. . . but saying that the mere offering of such technology would "trigger the mandates" is, as I said, speculative nonsense.

[hack89]

15. The trigger was written into law.

It mandated that only smart guns could be sold once they were available for sale. Why are you having such a hard time with this?

[markpkessinger]

17. The NRA went after Smith and Wesson in 1999 . . .

. . . well before the Massachusetts law was proposed.

[hack89]

18. Talking about the NJ law. nt

[markpkessinger]

19. And that law wasn't in effect in 1999 n/t

[hack89]

20. It was introduced in 1997. nt

[karadax]

12. The Massachusetts legislation had some good things in it

Like compensating firearms manufacturers fully for retrofitting older guns with the personalization technology.

The NRA's beef seems to be that it would make guns more expensive and temporarily reduce the number of legal firearms available.

[hack89]

14. It made some shakey assumptions

The first one being that gun manufacturers would spend the time and money to design, build and test retro kits for every gun they have ever sold. A lot of guns would become illegal and there was no talk of compensation for gun owners.

[SecularMotion]

3. This is why the gun lobby works to suppress research on guns

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Studies show owning/carrying a gun does not make you safer.

[markpkessinger]

4. In this debate, as with the terrorism/security debate . . .

. . . far too many have lost sight of the difference between feeling safe and actually being safer.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. Perfectly Stated!

And, perhaps we wouldn't have that lost difference if this really were the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Jim Beard]

13. I know it and you know it but how do we get others to accept that fact?

[sweetapogee]

16. the solution to the problem

is very simple. Amend the constitution repealing the second amendment. Do that and your problem disappears.

[Snobblevitch]

25. If the 2nd Amendment is repealed,

the laws on firearms revert to the states. I believe 47 states have RKBA in their state constitutions.

Did you ever take a civics class?

[sweetapogee]

31. If the 2nd Amendment is repealed,

then it goes without saying that at least 3/4ths of the states would have the political will to repeal their individual states RKBA.

[JI7]

5. people always talk about guns as protecting them

With an assumption that they will know exactly when and how the crime still occur .

There is a total lack of critical thinking.

And there are actual cases everyday of this with stories of relatives shooting other relatives. Kids getting hold of the gun and killing others or themselves.

Most sexual assault is also done by people you know so you don't think about needing to defend yourself.

[former9thward]

21. No the security is not illusory.

And you are dismissing the concerns of a rape victim just as the President did. The irony is that he and his family are surrounded by guns. You claim a person would have to have a loaded gun on them at all times. Nonsense. Do you think people live in tents? Assuming you don't live with your doors wide open it takes some effort to break into a house. And there is noise associated with that. People have plenty of time to get a gun and even load it before someone breaks in.

[markpkessinger]

28. There are many variables in the scanario you suggest...

Whether or not a person would hear the noise would depend on a number of factors: how large is the house, how far a person is from the point of entry, the presence of sound-absorbing materials (carpet, rugs, curtains and draperies, upholstery), the presence of other noise in the house, etc.). And there is the question of where a person is relative to the gun and ammunition storage location at the time the intrusion occurred. There is a question of whether or not a person would realize immediately that his or her home was being broken into even if they heard the noise. There is a question of whether the person was asleep or awake, and how soundly he or she were sleeping at the time. If all of those factors lined up perfectly, then maybe the person would have time to make it to the gun safe, open it, retrieve the ammunition and be ready in time to use it effectively against an intruder, assuming he or she could remain calm enough to do so. But the odds of all of that lining up are very, very slim.

[Shandris]

22. Uh-huh. So then the police need to be parked outside every home then, yes? I mean, for them to...

...be 'protection', they'd have to be even faster than a firearm, so they'd have to be RIGHT outside. I mean, like, within arm's reach. Because that's the only time the gun is a defense, so it would likewise be the only time the police are a defense.

Or is the argument that we'll all be equally defenseless?

[markpkessinger]

23. It is a myth that police "protect us" in any case . . .

. . . what's more, per a recent Supreme Court ruling, police are under no obligation to protect citizens. So that's really an irrelevant point to this discussion.

[Shandris]

24. I know. It was a lead-in to the (obvious) point that you want to disarm everyone equally.

Then we can be equally defenseless, except for the police who can continue to execute citizens. From 'Black Lives Matter' to 'No Black Lives Don't Matter But Fortunately Neither Do Anyone Else's So Yay Equality'.

Don't think I'm up to watching that movement. The acronym would be too difficult.

[markpkessinger]

27. I haven't called for disarming everybody (and neither has the President)

I am merely pointing out a major flaw in the "protection" argument. Look, I grew up in rural PA, in a family that hunted. We owned many guns. I know what responsible gun ownership looks like, and what it doesn't look like. And having a gun loaded and at the ready is inconsistent with responsible gun ownership.

[Shandris]

30. 'Merely'.

Ahh, okay. So we're into rhetorical tricks. That's right, you're a professional or something. K. NP. But I'm done.

Peace.

[X_Digger]

26. Not a recent decision, no.

Time and again, from at least 1858 on, there has been a repeated claim of damages due to the lack of a government service (including police protection.)

Time and again, the courts reaffirm that absent a special relationship (like being in police custody), the police have no legally enforceable obligation to protect you, help you, or even stop a crime in progress against you.

A cop can step over you struggling on the ground with an armed attacker to get to a donut shop, and legally there's not a damned thing you can do about it.

South v. Maryland (1858)

Cocking v. Wade (1896)

Riss v. City of New York - 1967

http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

[div class='excerpt']Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

Rule of Law and Holding

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

[div class='excerpt']The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

You may be thinking of Castle Rock v Gonzales which captured national interest for a while:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

[div class='excerpt']During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival.
...
The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.

[markpkessinger]

29. Good points . . . .

. . . and thanks for clarifying. Yes, I was thinking of the Gonzales case.