Why we have the 2nd amendment

So, you're to blame, eh?
Everybody lurves the blue book.

Well I do think that they were planning to put some serious aggravated assault on his ass if he didn't comply , and he beat them to the draw.

Studies have shown that if you don't try to rob people on the subway, your chances of being shot by a vigilante with a pistol are greatly reduced.

i used to ride everyday and night in the early 80's...it was only a matter of time before someone fought back..

No really, it was a direct response to your constant claims of incoherence and inability to understand the argument. I guess it's too much to hope for *you* to be big and accept that you asked for it.

The implication of course, being that armed citizens often do just that. But of course, as with the rest of your argument you haven't *shown* that. In fact, you haven't shown *any* public interest in preventing the practice, aside from your general distaste for it.

Number of people shot by Helter carrying a cocealed weapon = 0
Number of innocent people shot by police > 0

Sorry, you lose.

You keep on making these arguments, but won't back them up with anything. Come on, if you want to prevent citizens from being able to carry, show the numbers that prove it to be a public danger.

Well, for one thing, if you read my argument I never claim that it does or does not have a preventative effect. I honestly don't care. What I care about is that it gives the possesor the *ability* to defend themselves. For another, as I'm sure you are aware, there is no way to accurately determine the preventative effect of such a thing, as there is no way to record instances of it occurring, and general trends in crime are almost always attributable to numerous different things.

Of course, I could say that the violent crime rate in the US is lower in CCW states than in "no carry" states, or states with extremely strict carry laws. Or I could bring up the much derided Lott study, which concluded that the ability to carry a concealed weapon lowered the overall crime rate in counties significantly.

Instead I think I'll mention that lacking any demonstrated public interest in limiting the right, it should be reserved for the people.

You're the one trying to show a public interest in limiting the rights of the citizenry, the burden of proof is on you.

In what way is this immaterial? Your entire argument rests on the assumption that police are across the board effecttive as a protective agency. Lacking that, you're basically saying "police can be effective, but if they're not, too bad, you're screwed". Oh wait, I see... It's immaterial because it burdens your case with the fact that successes such as those recently seen with the NYC police are rare, and that without the right political leaders, (who may not even exist in all places) results might not even be possible. So all it takes are the right political leaders huh? That's all?
So, exactly how long does it take for these leaders to be found? How long to show the same results that NYC has shown once they're found?
Let me guess, these questions are intellectually bankrupt, and immaterial?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I "asked" for asinine and immature insults. My bad.

Even if they very infrequently do any of these things, and it's obvious to anyone paying attention that it's bound to happen sometimes, it still is more frequent than it would be if people didn't carry around concealed weapons. The public interest is obvious to anyone who doesn't have some sort of axe to grind b/c of a morbid fascination with handguns. You haven't even claimed that there is a public interest in carrying concealed weapons. You claim that there is an individual interest in the supposed personal protection benefit of carrying such weapons, which you haven't demonstrated.

Probability that innocent people will be shot by Helter or people liike Helter carrying concealed weapons without formal training = high
Probability that innocent people will be shot by trained law enforcement professionals = low.

This problem would be compounded by the fact that there are relatively few police officers vs. the population that would theoretically be eligible to carry concealed weapons. There are about 40,000 police officers in NYC. How many untrained, highly armed citizens do you propose we unleash on the streets of the city?

But wasn't it obvious that I was talking about probabilities in the first place? Blowing unresponsive hot air is not a winning strategy. Come back when you have a better tactic, because everyone saw through that paper tiger.

I just backed it up with a specific example, viz. Goetz. Since you are arguing to change the status quo, i.e. strict controls on carrying concealed weapons, I think the onus is on you to prove that it wouldn't be a public danger. In particular, since most reasonable people would intuitively consider arming the population with concealed weapons to be a pretty bad idea, the burden of proof is on you.

So, to sum up, you don't claim that there is any public policy argument for why carrying concealed weapons is a good idea. But I still have to prove that it's a bad idea, even though the status quo ante is that carrying concealed weapons is not a protected second amendment or other constitutional right?

Of course, I could point to the dozens of countries in the rest of the developed world that have no protected right to carry or own firearms at all where the overall crime rates, and murder rates in particular, are unbelievably low relative to the US.

Did the crime rate drop AFTER the INTRODUCTION of concealed weapons permits? If not, all you've got is a correlation between low crime and CCW states that may be caused by any number of other factors. Do you have something that demonstrates a causal connection between concealed weapons and low crime?

The problem is that there is no right to carry concealed firearms. Where does it say that in the constitution? Where is there a federal court that says there is such a right?

See above. There is no such right to carry concealed firearms.

What you said originally was immaterial because you ignored the "plus effective political oversight" part of "police plus effective political oversight."

It's demonstrably true that police plus effective political oversight is effective in protecting the citizenry from crime. It's not an assumption.

And you now don't seem to claim that we have any realistic alternative to this model, and have made no claim that having a gun will "protect" you in any way. It might give you the ability to defend yourself, but even this is questionable since muggers don't generally give you a chance to pull out your glock before they start beating you down. Wow, that is really really compelling. What is your argument for carrying a concealed weapon other than it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Since you're not claiming that having a gun would somehow un-screw you, what is your point? That's right, if you don't have a good police department, you are fucked. I've lived in New York for 25 out of the last 29 years. I've seen both terrible law enforcement and brilliant law enforcement, and I'm not uncomfortable with saying I was fucked when we had terrible law enforcement. You started this dialog with a call to personal responsibility w/r/t protection and crime prevention... I agree, but think the solution is a collective solution. What's wrong with saying if you've failed as a collective to protect yourself, you're fucked? The trick with "personal responsibility" is that you're RESPONSIBLE for the fuck ups.

Since you have admitted that you aren't proposing any kind of alternative solution, what the hell are you on about? You seem to have finally devolved to the level of "wah wah wah, I want my gun! Guns are cool and shit."

In other words, grow up.

It's not all that rare. The insanely out of control crime of the late 70s and 80s was the outlier, not the norm in NYC. Crime rates are down nation-wide, particularly in the big cities. And even if I assume, arguendo, that it is rare, so what? You're not proposing an alternative solution. You just want to carry a gun because it makes you feel safe, more or less. So what does the purported rarity of low crime locales have to do with your argument? You've already said that until there is no crime, you want to carry your gun.

You're making my argument sound rather vulgar and simplistic. It isn't. You have to have the right political leaders who find the right policies and people to implement them. It's complicated, obviously, but it can be done and has been done in NYC where the problem of crime is most acute. Like the man said, if we can do it here, it can be done anywhere.

Well, if you were offering some sort of interim solution to the problem you might have a point. But you aren't, so you don't. If your locality is too retarded to have effective police, by all means convince your neighbors that you should all walk around strapped and make concealed firearms legal. Have fun. I'm sure you'll be really really safe and protected. Or something. But if you like individual/personal responsibility so much, maybe you should accept some personal responsibility for the fact that your locality has shitty police and that you are not protected because of your failure to demand effective police protection.

I would have said of no moment and easily deconstructed and debunked, but you're free to use whatever synonyms you like.

Well then let me help you out with this one… When you make a big production of claiming to not understand someones perfectly cogent argument, you can expect them to make at least a small production of explaining it in simple terms for you.

Ah, yet more of your "it stands to reason" line of argument. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Your personal feelings towards guns and gun ownership don't qualify as valid justification for legislation. If concealed carry represents a real public safety risk, then show it. Otherwise, go away.

Back that up with numbers… What are the numbers for shootings involving a licensed carrier of a firearm firing on someone in a non-defensive situation, compared to the numbers for police involved in similar shootings. Sorry, but you're not going to get anywhere with this "It's *probably* true" shit. If you have numbers to back up a statement like that then show them, otherwise, keep it to yourself.

You know, I live in a "shall issue" state, and we really just don't have a huge problem with licensed carriers shooting the place up.

Yes, you were talking about probabilities, but you weren't demonstrating them. Unless you have the power to alter reality and just haven't told us, then your categorical statements hold exactly zero weight unless they're supported by supplied facts.

Undoubtedly huh? Well then why don't you just show the numbers that must back up your undoubtable assertion. I will again mention that I live in just such a state that you seem to fear so much, and we don't have a whole lot of Bernie Goetzes around. In fact, the majority of our shootings seem to involve people who, despite living in a shall issue state, do not have a license to carry a concealed weapon (which suggests that even if we didn't have concealed carry laws, they'd still carry guns).

Ok, so a single example is your proof? So I guess all it will take is one example of police involved in a wrongful shooting for you to say that the police should be disarmed?
I'm going to pretend you didn't even make any claims about what "most reasonable people intuitively consider a bad idea" Is that what they teach you in law school?
As for the burden of proof, no, you are making claims regarding the public safety issue involved in allowing concealed carry. I don't bear the burden to disprove your unsupported argument. You are the one arguing that there is a public interest, you bear the burden of proof.

I never argued that there was a causal relationship, I was simply pointing out that, even though my argument does not require such statistics, they exist in abundance.

1) There is a right to bear arms, any limitations on when or where those arms can be born is technically a limit on the right, and should require a demonstrated public interest.
2) There is a right to self defense exhibited in the spirit of the laws of every state, and precluding the citizenry from carrying tools neccesary to excersise that right should require a demonstrated public interest.
3) In a free state, any activity not precluded by law is a right. Any law limiting activities is a limitation to those rights. Any limitation of rights should require a demonstrated public interest.

No, I was pointing out the fact that "effective political oversight" is not something that you get at the corner store. Your argument rests on the argument that with effective policing, the citizenry should not have to defend themselves. Despite refuting that claim itself, I'm also showing that "effective policing" can in no way be guaranteed. You stumbled on it in NYC, but you're just a few elections and some real estate price fluctuations away from having the safety nightmare that you lived with for so many years back again.
To clarify, even if your statements regarding the sole need for effective police were true, there is no way to guarantee effective policing in any area for any given time.

1) You yourself admit that even the best policing isn't going to stop all of the crime, therefore the citizenry are still being victimized, and thus are *not* effectively protected.
2) You have not demonstrated at all that police plus effective political oversight is effective. You've presented a single case as your evidence, but ignored the many other factors that contributed to the lowered crime rate there.
3) You have not spoken at all to the possibility of an area having an effective police force (ie, they catch most criminals, and can respond quickly to crime "hotspots" effective political oversight, AND a crime problem. I assume because of this that you can show conclusively that this situation does not and can not exist...

I've stated numerous times, and in numerous ways that I have no problem with the police. How many times does it need to be stated for you to get it? I'm not suggesting an alternative model to collective law enforcement, because I don't think that one is needed. I am however, showing quite clearly that collective law enforcement is not the magic bullet that you claim it to be. Despite having the "protective effect" of lowering overall crime, it still leaves the individual citizen largely unprotected from the remaining criminal factors. My "alternative model" is to implement effective policing, but allow the individual the ability to protect themselves should they so desire in addition to that.

Your evidence for this is what exactly? In my experience, muggers generally do *exactly that*. Rolling a mark takes skill and more than one person. It's much easier to intimidate them into giving up their money voluntarily. This is, of course, assuming that the mugger comes out of nowhere to attack. Many victims report seeing their attacker and even anticipating the attack beforehand, giving them the potential to prepare.

Having a gun gives you the ability to keep yourself from getting screwed in the first place.

What's wrong with it is that it denies the individual the ability to effectively defend themselves. You think the solution is a collective one, but if the collective solution doesn't achieve success, you simply want the citizens to suffer? That kind of undermines your entire argument. You started saying that we don't need to carry guns because the police provide all the protection that we need, but now I see that if they don't, too bad? Sounds an aweful lot like you just don't like guns, and will pull whatever argument is expedient to justify it...
Incidentally, that's exactly the type of situation that breeds Berny Goetz's.

Speaking of retarded insults… I've said pretty consistently that I don't propose any alternative for collectively dealing with crime, my alternative is to keep the collective solution, but allow the citizens the ability to defend themselves from the remaining criminal element should they so choose. You haven't demonstrated any public safety issue with this, in fact, aside from your general dislike for guns you haven't presented any factual argument for why the citizens should not be able to carry weapons at all. Your entire argument can be summed up as "obviously we shouldn't be allowed to carry guns on the streets." I'd add your police angle in there, but apparantly that doesn't even matter, because even *without* effective police forces you don't support it.

I have, why don't you try it a bit?

Not to rain on your parade, but I have pretty consistently proposed the same alternate solution. I suppose that because it didn't fall into your "collective only" way of thinking you just didn't catch that though.

Actually, I don't normally carry a gun. I want the right to do so protected so that I have the option of defending myself should I need to. Not to legitimize your ad hominem with a response, I just felt that should be mentioned.

No, as usual you're twisting what I said. Nice strawman though… What I've said is that until universal protection can be provided, I want the right to provide for my own. I personally don not normally carry a gun.

Apparantly though, it is. Your argument boils down to "no guns carried, no matter what". The efficacy of the police clearly isn't an issue, beause you've already stated that even if police in an area don't provide any measurable protective effect, you *still* don't support the populace being able to defend themselves. So it comes down to you just disliking guns. That's fine, but it isn't a basis for legislation.

Actually, as usual I do. The point being that there is no way to guarantee that all of those complicated factors come together to produce the effective police force that you talk about so much.

You mean, the way NYC has been for most of it's life?

You can "demand effective police protection" all you want, but until someone runs for office that can provide it, and gets the support neccesary to get the message out, AND you can recognize this vague quality that so far has gone completely undefined, AND a majority of other people can too, you're shit outta luck. And even *with* effective police, as has been mentioned elsewhere, there are quite a few factors coming together to bring the crime rate in NYC down to it's present levels.
Incidentally, how does one take personal responsibility for something that the collective does?

Oh, come on it was 14th Street in the middle of the day in a crowded Subway car. They were assholes, but really Goetz was wound more than a little too tight. I was six blocks away, taking a final. That was my subway station, A Subway station my parents had no problem sending my skinny white ass to. I was never mugged, or harassed. I saw a very funny chain snatching once on the RR but really, I never felt the need for dum dum bullets. The Goetz thing was a fluke, a bunch of defectives who happened to find each other in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not a lot of lessons to be drawn there.

I'm sorry, didn't you just repeat what you said the first time: I "asked" for your immature insults? Congratulations, you're a real prince.

What's your problem with logical deduction in the absence of hard statistics that you yourself have pointed to when you didn't want to quote hard statistics?

Lets make the very conservative assumption that an untrained citizen armed with a concealed weapon will make a mistake and injure an innocent person at least as frequently as a trained cop. Seems like an unobjectionable assumption, wouldn't you say? So instead of having 40,000 people (the number of armed police officers in NYC) making errors at a rate of X, we will have 40,000 people plus however many concealed weapons carriers at a rate of X making mistakes that result in injuries to innocents. Sounds like there are reasonable grounds to surmise that the number of injuries will increase with Y number of additional armed people on the street. = a totally reasonable, legitimate public policy reason for keeping those guns out of the hands of the concealed weapons carriers.

cf. my comment above.

Maybe it's not a "huge" problem, but I'm certain it results in some problems. And since you are talking about providing a purported individual benefit (the assumed protection of carrying a concealed weapon) in return for imposing a collective risk on the population in general, we have public policy grounds for banning concealed weapons.

Yes, I have demonstrated them in a manner that is reasonable for this forum, i.e logical deduction based on reasonable assumptions. When you come to NY and challenge the constitutionality of our restrictions in a court of law, then I'm sure the AG will have no problem digging up "hard" statistical evidence.

So your argument now is that people are going to carry guns anyway. If having concealed weapons permits won't increase the number of people carrying such weapons, then this discussion is a waste of time.

No, because there is an overriding public policy interest in having an armed police force, i.e. making protective, preventative law enforcement feasible. There is no counterbalancing public policy interest in the case of arming citizens with concealed weapons. The only interest you've invoked is an individual interest in personal protection ≠ public policy interest.

In fact, yes, the reasonable person standard is a huge part of what is taught in law school, and it's a heuristic tool that's used all the time, on a daily basis, by every court in the country, even courts in PA.

No, I really don't. You're arguing to change the status quo. If you want to change things you have to demonstrate that they should be changed. I've offered plenty of logicial arguments for why the prohibition of concealed weapons is sound public policy, you've offered exactly ZERO by constantly claiming that you don't have to offer any.

And countervailing statistics exist in abundance as well.

Let's dig up what you said about what you yourself have argued the second amendment entitles citizens to, shall we?

(emphasis added)

From this and your other statements, as well as the text of the second amendment itself, available Here, the argument on your side seems to be that US citizens are entitled to whatever weapons and the right to bear such weapons as militias have, yes?

Well, that's interesting since the
Third Geneva Convention to which the United States is a signatory, suggests that members of "militias" "carry arms openly."

So, I could make a fairly strong legal argument that the carrying of concealed weapons is not covered at all by the second amendment, and I wouldn't need any public policy argument at all to overcome the second amendment.

You're correct in that all penal laws in the US have an affirmative defense of self defense. Because the states have police powers to pass whatever legislation they choose, in the absence of a protected right under the US Constitution or the particular state constitution, the states, in fact, do not have to articulate a public policy reason to pass legislation, even if you happen to think they should have to.

Maybe you think it should but according to well settled doctrine and judicial practice, courts will not enquire into the legislative purpose of the legislature when it enacts legislation. The exceptions to this rule are a specifically protected right or if there is simply no legitimate legislative purpose (i.e. there is no rational relation between the legislation and the purported legislative purpose). I assure you that this falls into neither category.

So what?

True, but so what?

I didn't claim this. I said police plus effective political oversight are neccesary and sufficient.

So what? Having a gun doesn't guarantee protection either.

I'm saying the population can be optimally protected through police. In any scenario where there are risks you will always reach a point where the cost of protective/preventative measures is > the loss avoided by incurring such costs. Theoretically you could keep adding police until there were police officers every 10 yards, and then crime would presumably drop to a very very small number or zero. But, cruel though it may seem, you have to decide that a certain amount of crime is the better cost to bear than the cost of preventing the crime.

To put it in a less contentious context, imagine a construction site where a skyscraper is being erected. A statistitian will tell you that there will be X injuries in building such a building that will cost Y, and that you could spend Z to prevent the injuries. If Z > Y, you would choose to bear the cost of Y. What's more, you would not be legally negligent for choosing Y over Z. At some point it's simply economically inefficient and irrational to make everything perfectly safe. There are risks that we all have to live with, if we are to live in a productive society.

In the case of concealed weapons, we are faced with a lose-lose proposition because permitting such weapons would result in a net increase in the number of mistakes that cause loss, right? You've said all along that the individual is the one who benefits and not the collective. I think it's pretty reasonable to presume that the collective would also bear the costs of the mistakes made by the concealed weapons carriers, even if we assume that those costs are minimal.

Well, I think it's a reasonable theory for explaining why the crime rate is dropping faster in NYC than it has nationwide where the other factors are constant. In fact, there has been a slight uptick in crime nationwide in the last two years while the crime rate in NYC has continued to drop.

You're sort of grasping at straws now, though, since you haven't raised this "other factors" issue previously and have conceded tacitly that effective police provides a very efficient measure of protection.

Sure it's possible, but the most efficient protection is still going to come from police and not untrained gun-toting citizens.

No, of course I can't. But who cares?

It's not a magic bullet. It's the best solution we have to deal with the problem at hand. You still haven't suggested that there is a better solution. If you're saying there isn't a better solution, then what the hell are we arguing about?

There are other ways of protecting yourself that do not impose negative externalities on the community. But, yes, there will always be a risk and a cost that we bear for the unprevented crime. It's a question of efficiency.

Yes, sure, in some circumstances you might have a chance to defend yourself with a gun. Personal anecdotal evidence supports this, since I personally have been in plenty of situations where I knew something was about to happen and managed to extricate myself... and there have even been one or two when I knew something was about to happen and I couldn't do anything about it. I still doubt that having a gun or some other weapon would have improved matters. But even assuming that it would have, it's still a rather weak argument for changing the status quo.

Again, maybe. It's not a compelling argument.

No, it doesn't. It denies one seriously dubious way of defending oneself that would impose negative externalities on the community writ large. Guns aren't the only way to defend yourself. Common sense and street smarts are a much better "defensive tool" to use your phrase.

The unlucky citizens will suffer and the vast majority will be better off. That's the way the cookie crumbles, from a public policy point of view.

No. I said that they provide the most efficient and best available protection. If you disagree you're free to go live somewhere that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Actually, I am pretty neutral about guns. I've even shot a few guns, back in the day. And a friend of mine is trying to convince me to go to a range to shoot some handguns. It might be fun. What I don't like about guns is when they impose needless risks on me. This is why I don't have a problem with guns for home defense (that will be kept in the home) or guns for sporting purporses, like the ones in shooting ranges or hunting rifles.

If you say so. I was here when Bernie Goetz was getting bred. Where were you?

What can I say? You reap what you sow. I sort of gave up on civility when you repeatedly refused to be even slightly menschy by making a good faith acknowledgement that you were being immature and unpleasant for no good reason with your "put it in words even you can understand" bidness.

Fine as long as the method they choose doesn't impose any risks or costs to the community with no benefit to the community. In this case, you're on the losing side of that equation.

Sure I have. I just haven't produced a PhD dissertation in criminology on this subject, so I have to go with logic and deduction rather than the absurd and nonexistent evidence you demand, even though the burden of proof is clearly on you.

Intuitively, yes, I think it's a bad idea to have untrained people walking around on the streets carrying guns. I won't respond to the absurd hypothetical of a locality with NO effective police since you aren't describing any locality in the US that I've seen in my lifetime.

Wow, what an imaginative come back. Rude, condescending, and spouting off stupid rehtoric is no way to go through life. It certainly isn't convincing anyone here that you are all growns up, is it?

I never said "collective ONLY." I said collective solution and not this one individual and highly dubious individual measure.

When I aim an ad hominem attack in your direction, you'll know it. This was far from an ad hominem attack.

You don't have a protected right to carry a concealed firearm. From whence do you think such a right flows? Find me a court case or refute my earlier interpretation of the second amendment, which was based on your understanding of what rights it affords.

You should be more clear if you don't want me to "twist" what you've said. But it's a distinction without a difference. You may want such a right, but you don't have it and persistently refuse to articulate a reason why you should have such a right or privilege.

Now who is creating straw men?

No, I really never said that. Go find me the post where I said something that resembles this.

No, it really doesn't. Just because you like guns and I'm arguing against you, it does not follow logically that I dislike guns. Where have I said anything that leads you to believe that I dislike guns?

I'm sorry, did you do anything here other than say "yes I do" in response to "no you don't?" There are no guarantees in life, amigo. It's a tough world out there. I hate to break it to you, but you have to learn sometime.

I wouldn't say MOST of its life, but, sure, for a good part of it. What's your point? That I should accept some responsibility for that? Earth to Chester, PA: I already did. But that was already clear, wasn't it?

True. And having a concealed handgun will not change the fact that you live in a crime ridden death maze, so what the hell is your point? Wait, it's that you want to carry a gun even if it doesn't do anyone any good... I forgot.

The individuals are part of the collective, aren't they? I vote, I participate in the political process, I write letters to the editor, etc etc ad astra ad infinitum. I bear my share of personal responsibility for the actions or inaction of the collective. What is it about that that makes you so uncomfortable? How can the "collective" meaningfully take responsibility for these things without individual responsibility?


[Edited on Feb 17, 2005 by HenryTMensch]

[Edited on Feb 17, 2005 by HenryTMensch]

[Edited on Feb 17, 2005 by HenryTMensch]

Yes. This is an issue... I'm not a big fan of the disneyfication of times square or the NYPD issuing summonses to people for failing to carry proper ID (though this has happened quite rarely). But the political process is what ultimately controls this as well. It's not easy, clearly, but it's the struggle we have to deal with if we expect to live in a decent city.