About "regulation"

[Rivers]

Do you believe it is reasonable for government to pass any law that would allow police to take into custody an obviously deranged sociopath who is carrying a loaded firearm onto the school that your child attends?

OK, I admit that I built an extreme scenario but I want to make a point. In an absolute world, there would be no need for compromise or weighing of opposing views. But we don't live in that world. We do live in one that allows everyone to have rights that sometimes conflict. Then we are forced to compromise from one extreme position or another.

If you answer "yes" to the question, then at what point do you say that it is no longer OK to allow regulation? Is it race, gender, age, sobriety, criminal record, or religion? Or, if you say that no regulation is OK, how would you reconcile it to yourself if/when that nut case goes on a killing rampage with your own child as a victim?

It's a fine line, located in widely varying places, to define what level of regulation is tolerable to everyone, though perfect to no one.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[MP45Man]

Not sure I understand the question. In PA it is a first degree misdemeanor to take a firearm on to school property.

[Bob The Great]

I have a couple of questions: What rights are conflicting in your scenario? And how do you define "obviously deranged sociopath?"

What I would prefer is that the adults at the school be on the lookout for "obviously deranged sociopaths" and either have the principle invite him to leave (which is perfectly reasonable, and if he does not, then he is tresspassing) or wait for him to do something sociopathic, like try to shoot or kidnap a kid, and then shoot him with their own CCW.

Bottom line is this - a truly deranged sociopath bent on shooting up a school won't care if it's illegal for him to be armed. And by the time the police are called and show up, he'll probably have killed as many people as he has bullets and commited suicide.

That's not a knock on the cops, they just can't physically be everywhere at once. The only people who can are private citizens going about their daily lives.

If you want regulations, at least propose regulations that work. We've seen time and time again how ridiculously ineffective it is to prohibit carrying a gun as a means to prevent shootings. It just doesn't work.

[Shadowsbane]

First, who determines the man is obviously deranged? Me? You? The one who calls the police, or the police themselves?

To some my enjoyment of hunting is horribly deranged, to others it is the mere owning of a firearm.

Secondly if the said person is so obviously deranged then how does taking them into custody equate to regulation of firearms? I am sure regardless such a person would probably be viewed as a person of interest and questioned. Perhaps giving up his true intentions which would then become conspiricy to commit mass murder.

Also if there were regulations in place what makes you sure they would be followed? Such things already exist today, yet they do not have seemed to prevent much else besides those who could of otherwise defended themselves from becoming more than cattle waiting for slaughter.

[ccw9mm]

Do you believe it is reasonable for government to pass any law that would allow police to take into custody an obviously deranged sociopath ...

Law has purpose. Enforcement of basic laws such as elimination of "obvious" threats for cause is basically acceptable as a primary function of our system of justice/enforcement. The society has said so, based on that standard of behavior being codified into law.

The way I see it, your scenario is about removing the threat of a deranged person. The incidental fact he ends up being armed is beside the point. The fact he's arrested at my child's school, even more so.

In an absolute world, there would be no need for compromise or weighing of opposing views.

There are no absolutes. Further, I don't believe it would be desirable, even if possible.

(Think for a moment on an absolute right to own and defend your space. Kill anyone that comes near, no questions asked. Kosher? Uh, no. There are limits to that "ownership" and what you can do with it.)

A collection of laws is, in essence, our agreed standards to which we'll hold ourselves. (Ignoring for a moment those laws that go well beyond that basic purpose.)

It's a fine line, located in widely varying places, to define what level of regulation is tolerable to everyone, though perfect to no one.

No level of regulation is tolerable to everyone. It's an impossible, pie-in-the-sky hope that will never be.

I'm with others who say: I don't really understand the question you're asking, or even the scenario you're proposing.

Life is. You do, or you don't. You choose to live in relative peace with others, or not. In a representative system of government, you get a shot at contributing to your own direction, the degree of governance, which laws get erected or cast down. You get to decide if that's your cup of tea, or not.

[Rivers]

Rather than micro-defining that this term or that term means, or whether there is an existing law or not, I'd like to point out that every question posed suggests that there is a point of compromise, or movement away from an absolute position.

Whether it's guns, birth control, religious freedom, etc., my point is that while it may "feel right" to refuse to accept any regulation whatsoever, that is not our reality. If everyone were absolutely sane, responsible and in possession of his mental and emotional faculties, then we could move that "fine line" closer to an absolute answer. Unfortunately, the sane and the insane walk this earth with equal human rights. To maintain the public safety, those rights are limited, just as the right to free speech does not include falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

RKBA suffers the same need for compromise, to control that which poses a real danger while hopefully not trampling on the freedoms of those who present no risk. That is the battle we have to fight. The trick is knowing where to make our stand.

[Bob The Great]

sorry, but I disagree. A right has no "need" to compromise with those who would take it away. I would refer you to read some of the letters of Thomas Jefferson.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

-Thomas Jefferson

There will always be evil people in the world, and no matter how people try to control them, they will exist, and bad things will happen. The trap to avoid is judging all people by the lowest common denominator, in the hope that if you treat everyone as bad, you will be able to control the actual bad people. This is simply false. Society must deal with the evil people in it, but not by sacrificing the rights of everyone for a fanciful measure of "control" over evil.

[Thanis]

...Then we are forced to compromise from one extreme position or another...It's a fine line, located in widely varying places, to define what level of regulation is tolerable to everyone, though perfect to no one.

Anti-gun uses this logic alot. One of the reasons they pushed so hard o the, "right to bear arms is only limited to militia." Once you take 2A out of the picture for individual gun-owners, you can get into a privlage argument. Since no compromise can be found, take the guns from everyone for everyone's safety.

That argument you offer can be used by pro-gun or anti-gun. IMO, the major flaw of the process you state is that it favors anti-gun. We can play semantics, but you do not bear arms because you will need a weapon (you should call LE in that case) but because you might need a weapon for self-preservation. If no compromise can be found, and only one of two extreme options is possible, reason would favor the immediate not the possible.

[ccw9mm]

If no compromise can be found, and only one of two extreme options is possible, reason would favor the immediate not the possible.

... which rationalizes the means of defense right out of one's hands. ONLY by preparing for the possible can one hope to be prepared for the immediate if it should occur.

[packinnova]

Do you believe it is reasonable for government to pass any law that would allow police to take into custody an obviously deranged sociopath who is carrying a loaded firearm onto the school that your child attends?

OK, I admit that I built an extreme scenario but I want to make a point. In an absolute world, there would be no need for compromise or weighing of opposing views. But we don't live in that world. We do live in one that allows everyone to have rights that sometimes conflict. Then we are forced to compromise from one extreme position or another.

If you answer "yes" to the question, then at what point do you say that it is no longer OK to allow regulation? Is it race, gender, age, sobriety, criminal record, or religion? Or, if you say that no regulation is OK, how would you reconcile it to yourself if/when that nut case goes on a killing rampage with your own child as a victim?

It's a fine line, located in widely varying places, to define what level of regulation is tolerable to everyone, though perfect to no one.

The problem is that the "fine" line is not so fine. There is effectively no end to the question you pose. Effectively it is no different than the pre-emptive strike concept in war. For all I know, I could determine you could be a sociopath on our first meeting and therefore determine it is necessary for hte good of the public to pre-emptively eliminate the threat.

I don't believe in comprise. Comprimise is used the same as the race concept. As in the ones that claim that winning a race doesn't matter, only the running of the race...notice that that's almost always stated by the losers of the race. I care to be on the living side thanks.

[Rivers]

That argument you offer can be used by pro-gun or anti-gun. IMO, the major flaw of the process you state is that it favors anti-gun. We can play semantics, but you do not bear arms because you will need a weapon (you should call LE in that case) but because you might need a weapon for self-preservation. If no compromise can be found, and only one of two extreme options is possible, reason would favor the immediate not the possible.

Maybe this helps put it into perspective: In CA in the 1990's, the legislature passed a law that was officially intended to get "Saturday Night Specials" off the street. They called it the "Safe Handgun Law." The NRA fought loud and clear that this was NOT the actual intent and that the anti-gunners had much more devious goals with that law. Well, outlawing "unsafe guns" sounded like a great idea. Still, lawmakers needed to get LE on board to get it passed. So they exempted LE from the law. It passed and the NRA was right on the money. Pro-gunners have carried that burden ever since.

In the original question, I intended to highlight the fact that everyday we're faced with making decisions according to our beliefs. When we have to "draw that line in the sand," it's critical that we do so wisely and with an eye to the worst case scenarios.

The CA law, like so many other laws, was promoted as one that struck a common sense position. In truth, it has done nothing to achieve those goals while infringing upon the rights of the citizens who had done nothing wrong.

Common sense suggests that a deranged gun-toting wacko at a school could be a problem. But what is the real problem: wacko, wacko at school, the gun, wacko with gun, gun at school? Each of these components to the question present a possible "line in the sand."

[Bob The Great]

ONLY by preparing for the possible can one hope to be prepared for the immediate if it should occur.

That is perfectly stated, sir.

Common sense suggests that a deranged gun-toting wacko at a school could be a problem. But what is the real problem: wacko, wacko at school, the gun, wacko with gun, gun at school? Each of these components to the question present a possible "line in the sand."

well, let's break down this potential problem on deranged gun-toting wacko at a school.

Is being deranged a problem? It sure can be. In some cases, people who are clinically insane are removed from society because their insanity prevents them from functioning on their own.

Is gun-toting a problem? I think most of us here would agree that the mere act of carrying a gun is not harmful in any way. So, no problem here.

Is being a wacko a problem? That's such a loose term that it really doesn't mean anything anymore. So, I'm ignoring it, because any clear mening would make it essentially synonymous with "deranged."

Is being at school a problem? No, clearly it is not. Lots of people do it all the time.

So, if gun-toting is not a problem and being at school is not a problem, why would there be a problem gun-toting at school? Answer: there wouldn't be.

Your scenario revolves around a lunatic, (assumably) bent on killing people. This is not a good starting point for determining regulations for people who are not homicidal lunatics. It's a little bit like saying "rabid dogs sometimes bite people, therefore all dogs must be caged 24/7." Why treat the healthy dogs as though they are rabid? It doesn't make sense, unless the goal is to cage all dogs, which sadly, may be true.

[Thanis]

... which rationalizes the means of defense right out of one's hands. ONLY by preparing for the possible can one hope to be prepared for the immediate if it should occur.

I agree.

Why pro-gun should not make an argument that states there can only be two extreme options. Rationalization in that case would work against pro-gun, IMO.

With that said, because of 2A, the burden is on anti-gun to prove that a regulation does not infringe on a right (as apposed to pro-gun needing to prove it does).

Maybe this helps put it into perspective: In CA in the 1990's, the legislature passed a law that was officially intended to get "Saturday Night Specials" off the street. They called it the "Safe Handgun Law." The NRA fought loud and clear that this was NOT the actual intent and that the anti-gunners had much more devious goals with that law. Well, outlawing "unsafe guns" sounded like a great idea. Still, lawmakers needed to get LE on board to get it passed. So they exempted LE from the law. It passed and the NRA was right on the money. Pro-gunners have carried that burden ever since...

On this forum I often get caught making an argument I don't like. One of those is my disagreement with the often used erosion argument (reasonable regulation will lead to unreasonable regulation, so there should be no regulation).

For the reason you stated, and many other examples, I don't like being the person to state erosion of rights does not mean there can't be reasonable regulation.

Just because anti-gun a**h**** lie does not mean reasonable restrictions can't be found if the concern is real and not just hype.

I just will not allow anti-gun the word reasonable.

IMO portion: In addition, I think there are dangerous, top of he line, exploding ammo, by their nature unsafe, etc. firearms never designed for civilian SD, hobby, or hunting uses. They belong in the hands of the military. But that list does not include a .22 LR, .38 Spl, or AK-47.

[Rivers]

well, let's break down this potential problem on deranged gun-toting wacko at a school.

Is being deranged a problem? It sure can be. In some cases, people who are clinically insane are removed from society because their insanity prevents them from functioning on their own.

Is gun-toting a problem? I think most of us here would agree that the mere act of carrying a gun is not harmful in any way. So, no problem here.

Is being a wacko a problem? That's such a loose term that it really doesn't mean anything anymore. So, I'm ignoring it, because any clear mening would make it essentially synonymous with "deranged."

Is being at school a problem? No, clearly it is not. Lots of people do it all the time.

So, if gun-toting is not a problem and being at school is not a problem, why would there be a problem gun-toting at school? Answer: there wouldn't be.

Your scenario revolves around a lunatic, (assumably) bent on killing people. This is not a good starting point for determining regulations for people who are not homicidal lunatics. It's a little bit like saying "rabid dogs sometimes bite people, therefore all dogs must be caged 24/7." Why treat the healthy dogs as though they are rabid? It doesn't make sense, unless the goal is to cage all dogs, which sadly, may be true.

Nicely analyzed.

Granted that the scenario is a bit extreme but unfortunately it matches the Virginia Tech killer and his like. It's extreme, very rare but a huge headline-getter that promotes the anti-gunners' hysteria. It creates a vulnerable public mindset for the antis to drive home chronic fear and anxiety. When this manufactured perception is accepted as factual, it is easier to generate laws based on this junk psychology.

[Thanis]

Nicely analyzed....When this manufactured perception is accepted as factual, it is easier to generate laws based on this junk psychology.

+1