Criminals Should be Very Very Afraid of New Gun Law in Missouri

[junkyarddog]

Do not confuse the arrogance of superiority to others, to mean that we are inhrently a more "civilized society." As a country we are indeed arrogant, but as a society we are not so civilized.

Some objective or at least neutral source of evidence would go a long ways to back the statement "as a society we are not so civilized". Not so civilized as compared to what being the key question.

That is not my point at all

It has to be your point. Responsibility is control. If you say the government should be responsible for a certain thing than you are necessarily advocating government control over that thing.

My point is very simple in that we have a right to receive what we are already paying for - laws such as this clearly show us that government is not doing the job we have already been paying them to do.

I have more than sufficiently responded that the passage of "stand your ground" laws IS the government doing its job far more so than the continued policy of "duty to retreat".

It is not about increasing government control, it is rather, about government exercising the control already existing in the right ways to do the job we have already paid government to do in the first place.

Exactly what job is that? Please be specific. If something is the governments job than it cannot be the peoples job also. If it is the peoples job than it cannot also be the governments job.

Please list any examples of the governments duty to defend us from other citizens who wish us harm. That duty does not exist.

You are overanalyzing my point which is simple enough.

No, I am making sense of your point. The right to have something (safety from violent crime/civilized society) is a positive right. The right to pursue something for yourself free from government interference (safety from violent crime/civilized society) is a negative right. If you are arguing that it is governments job to give us safety from violent crime and provide us with a civilized society than you are arguing positive rights.

If I pay you to cut a tree I expect to get what I paid you to do. The same is true with government. If I pay government to enforce laws as a means to fight crime and protect public safety (whether intended or incidential), then I expect and have the right for government to do the job I paid it to do.

That is an oversimplification of the issue. That is what I mean when I say I am not over complicating the issue, I am just putting it in its proper light. If you really think you are actually paying the government for anything at all, and you are unhappy with what you get for that payment, than just don't pay for it and see what happens. You see, you don't pay the government for anything, the government simply takes your money and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that.

So the government receives no payment for the service called "public safety". The money is taken from people via coercion and is then allocated to various
bureaucracies to fund the wages of the bureaucrats.

Neither now or ever has the government been liable for your safety. That is not complicating the issue, it is merely stating a fact. You pay a guy to cut a tree down via contract either verbal or written and cutting that tree down is then his liability. He has to do it. It is an entirely different thing than having to pay taxes and actually expecting a bureaucracy to effectively accomplish its namesake.

Laws such as this clearly show government is not doing the job it has been paid to do and is passing the buck. I am not asking or expecting the government to assume more control - just exercise the control it already has and do the job that we, the taxpayers, have paid government to do.

See above.

Its' pretty much that simple - stop overanalyzing my points.

I am not over analyzing you points, I am just putting them in a realistic perspective.

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States nor in any constitution of any state does it state or even imply that it is the responsibility of government to provide public safety.

These documents merely underscore the premise that government is not to interfere in the citizens or publics pursuit of public safety. This premise of non-infringement being the central organizing principle of our government, laws likewise have been passed from the premise and so carefully avoid seating much liability/responsibility/control in government. The same policy goes for the enforcement of these laws.

[Christopherstjo]

Again, as far as "civilized" is concerned, the only meaningful context or criteria is comparison with other nations. We compare favorably. Nations that do not compare favorably to us by contrast have very stringent laws against self-defense.

Do not confuse the arrogance of superiority to others, to mean that we are inhrently a more "civilized society." As a country we are indeed arrogant, but as a society we are not so civilized.

Your point is based on the idea that more government control and responsibility is the way to reduce crime.

That is not my point at all

My point is very simple in that we have a right to receive what we are already paying for - laws such as this clearly show us that government is not doing the job we have already been paying them to do.

It is not about increasing government control, it is rather, about government exercising the control already existing in the right ways to do the job we have already paid government to do in the first place.

You are overanalyzing my point which is simple enough. If I pay you to cut a tree I expect to get what I paid you to do. The same is true with government. If I pay government to enforce laws as a means to fight crime and protect public safety (whether intended or incidential), then I expect and have the right for government to do the job I paid it to do.

Laws such as this clearly show government is not doing the job it has been paid to do and is passing the buck. I am not asking or expecting the government to assume more control - just exercise the control it already has and do the job that we, the taxpayers, have paid government to do.

Its' pretty much that simple - stop overanalyzing my points.

[junkyarddog]

Beautifully stated. The case law is clear: The police owe NO general duty to protect any given individual citizen (the foundation of limited immunity); the duty is owed to the general public. On the other hand, self-protection is the well-established inherent right, and the moral obligation, of every citizen. The law in question does not in any way disturb either of these principles.

Mr. Cross betrays a very superficial understanding of the relationship between the citizen and the government, and of their respective responsibilities, by casting the issue in this way: "Some might argue that this is the way it should be; that we should be less dependant (sic) upon the government but at what costs; where do we draw the line in acceptable involvement of the public verses (sic) the duty of the government?"

One scarcely knows where to begin. First, the law does not grant any powers whatsoever to "the public" to act in any way as a corporate body, either in support of, supplemental to, or in opposition to the police. "The public" is not given police powers here. "The public" is not empowered to do ANYTHING by this law, and particularly not to take actions with respect to matters that are entrusted to the police. There is no authorization for "the public", for instance, to form a mob and begin to roam the streets "enforcing the law" in place of the police.

So the question of "acceptable involvement of the public" is a straw man that Mr. Cross has raised and then run through with his sword, dull though it may be.

Laws which decriminalize (or even authorize) certain actions that an individual citizen may be required (by circumstances) to take in defense of himself and his own direct interests do not in any way alter the nature of "public involvement" in policing, nor do they alter the nature of "public involvement" with the government, because they have nothing whatsoever to do with that subject, Mr. Cross. That you conflate these two very different notions (confusing permissible citizen action in self-defense with "public involvement in the government/policing") is what has led you into error.

You might as well be moaning that if a law were passed permitting the citizen to sweep the street outside his home (because the streets are filthy, and there aren't enough street-sweepers and the government just wants to "pass the buck"!!), that the citizen is taking over the functions of the street department and might, if he runs amok, decide to change the speed limit in front of his house to 4 mph.

Woe....oh, woe!

Thank you. Your doing a heck of a job yourself.

Really what Mr Cross is doing is making a subtle but transparent argument for legal positivism/positive rights. Positive rights as in "A right to _____" as opposed to negative rights as in "A right to pursue _____ , without interference from government".

In this case it is, "The right to government protection from violent crime" as opposed to "The right to protect ones self from violent crime without government interfering with the pursuit of that protection".

His larger point is, "The right to a government-provided civilized society" as opposed to "The right of citizens to pursue a civilized society without government interfering in that pursuit."

No matter what though, you just can't ever get away from the fact that America is constituted around natural law and negative rights. That along with 230 years of absolutely amazing stunning success, stability, civil society,
human rights, and undoubtedly the absolute best conditions for the most amount of people ever seen before on the earth.....all of that and the legal positivism/positive rights argument is a bit of a hard one to actually get away with in anything like a convincing way.

[junkyarddog]

While I recognize the value these kinds of laws have to protect citizens from criminal activity and then criminal prosecution for protecting oneself. I also recognized that laws such as this would not be needed if government was doing their jobs in the first place, and if society acted more like responsible law abiding adults. Hence, because neither of these exist, we have laws like this passed and in so doing, give evidence of our not being the "civilized society" we want everyone to believe we are.

Again, as far as "civilized" is concerned, the only meaningful context or criteria
is comparison with other nations. We compare favorably. Nations that do not compare favorably to us by contrast have very stringent laws against self-defense.

My point exactly. When we pass laws like this, we shift the balance of power into the hands of the people a bit too much to do the governments bidding. I am not saying people do not have a right to protect themselves what I am saying is that government needs to do its' job right in the first place instead of passing laws like this to pass the buck.

The US Government was not constituted around the idea of protecting citizens from citizens, it was constituted around protecting citizens from government. The "stand your ground" laws are a step towards our original founding principles, not a step away from them.

Again, the fact that we have these kinds of laws passed demonstrates the inadequate efforts and successes to get crime under control. The law was passed because there is too great a risk now days that people will fall prey to violent crimes.

Your point is based on the idea that more government control and responsibility is the way to reduce crime. The passing of "stand your ground" laws is not so much a passing of the buck or a sign of a society that lacks civilization as it is a way to reduce crime its self.

Your logic, btw, is circular. The effect of a thing cannot be the same thing as its cause.

There is a difference between keeping government to a minimum and that of merely passing the buck because of the failures of government to do its' job right in the first place.

No, to a government and a society that defines success as greater individual responsibility and freedom, and failure as greater government responsibility and freedom, "passing the buck" to the individual citizens is a great success.

Please cite the documented proof that violent crime is so much greater in America than in other civilized countries as to show America as less civilized. I've cited documented proof that says America is in fact more civilized because violent crime rates are lower than many other civilized countries, and is in fact the lowest of any nation its size period.

When we pay government money to do a job we have a right to expect that it will not only do its' job but do so correctly. When it does not, we end up having gun laws like this. . . .

The governments job is to make sure government stays out of the way of an individuals pursuit of happiness. These laws prove the government, in this instance, is doing its job.

[Christopherstjo]

Put me on the side that says this is the way it should be. I see it as a form of tort reform. Where once it was a crime to defend yourself, now it is not. I do not see that as a bad thing.

While I recognize the value these kinds of laws have to protect citizens from criminal activity and then criminal prosecution for protecting oneself. I also recognized that laws such as this would not be needed if government was doing their jobs in the first place, and if society acted more like responsible law abiding adults. Hence, because neither of these exist, we have laws like this passed and in so doing, give evidence of our not being the "civilized society" we want everyone to believe we are.

I don't see how it is "governments bidding" at all. Governments as a rule want to grow and increase in size and scope. This neither increases the size nor scope of government and, as you argue, in fact decreases it.

My point exactly. When we pass laws like this, we shift the balance of power into the hands of the people a bit too much to do the governments bidding. I am not saying people do not have a right to protect themselves what I am saying is that government needs to do its' job right in the first place instead of passing laws like this to pass the buck.

Relative to other modern industrial countries, we are in fact more civilized as proven by the international criminal statistics I posted. I don't see anything in the new laws nor in the overall context of crime statistics to substantiate your points.

Again, the fact that we have these kinds of laws passed demonstrates the inadequate efforts and successes to get crime under control. The law was passed because there is too great a risk now days that people will fall prey to violent crimes.

Where we draw the line in acceptable involvement of the public verses the duty of the government is an issue that has been debated since the founding of this country. The founding attitude was that government is a necessary evil that needs to be kept to a minimum. The new laws simply- and surprisingly- affirm that.

There is a difference between keeping government to a minimum and that of merely passing the buck because of the failures of government to do its' job right in the first place.

Debates on that issue carry into arguments of positive vs negative rights, legal positivism vs natural law etc etc.

"Debates" are healthy.... "Arguments" are not

In the end, the police are not and never were liable for protecting the public. The new laws simply make it so that the public is now NOT liable for protecting its self.

When we pay government money to do a job we have a right to expect that it will not only do its' job but do so correctly. When it does not, we end up having gun laws like this. . . .

[Christopherstjo]

I'm positive nobody is "arguing" any of those ideas in Missouri. The only arguments taking place exist in your head.

Everyone else in the state is accepting the law for what it is--a transfer of rights from the criminal to the victim. End of story.

Notwithstanding your intended scarcasim.... I very much doubt you can attest to what folks here are thinking and saying ..... but then scarcasim was the only thing you wanted to communicate ..... instead of engaging in constructive dialog

[SecTrainer]

Put me on the side that says this is the way it should be. I see it as a form of tort reform. Where once it was a crime to defend yourself, now it is not. I do not see that as a bad thing.

.....

In the end, the police are not and never were liable for protecting the public. The new laws simply make it so that the public is now NOT liable for protecting its self.

Beautifully stated. The case law is clear: The police owe NO general duty to protect any given individual citizen (the foundation of limited immunity); the duty is owed to the general public. On the other hand, self-protection is the well-established inherent right, and the moral obligation, of every citizen. The law in question does not in any way disturb either of these principles.

Mr. Cross betrays a very superficial understanding of the relationship between the citizen and the government, and of their respective responsibilities, by casting the issue in this way: "Some might argue that this is the way it should be; that we should be less dependant (sic) upon the government but at what costs; where do we draw the line in acceptable involvement of the public verses (sic) the duty of the government?"

One scarcely knows where to begin. First, the law does not grant any powers whatsoever to "the public" to act in any way as a corporate body, either in support of, supplemental to, or in opposition to the police. "The public" is not given police powers here. "The public" is not empowered to do ANYTHING by this law, and particularly not to take actions with respect to matters that are entrusted to the police. There is no authorization for "the public", for instance, to form a mob and begin to roam the streets "enforcing the law" in place of the police.

So the question of "acceptable involvement of the public" is a straw man that Mr. Cross has raised and then run through with his sword, dull though it may be.

Laws which decriminalize (or even authorize) certain actions that an individual citizen may be required (by circumstances) to take in defense of himself and his own direct interests do not in any way alter the nature of "public involvement" in policing, nor do they alter the nature of "public involvement" with the government, because they have nothing whatsoever to do with that subject, Mr. Cross. That you conflate these two very different notions (confusing permissible citizen action in self-defense with "public involvement in the government/policing") is what has led you into error.

You might as well be moaning that if a law were passed permitting the citizen to sweep the street outside his home (because the streets are filthy, and there aren't enough street-sweepers and the government just wants to "pass the buck"!!), that the citizen is taking over the functions of the street department and might, if he runs amok, decide to change the speed limit in front of his house to 4 mph.

Woe....oh, woe!

[junkyarddog]

Cocknaces

I get all that but it does not deter from the fact that none of these laws would need to exist if not for the fact that crime rates are out of hand and appropriate responses, i.e. police services, are becoming less and less. Thus, the very presence of these laws, on the claim of "necessity" gives clear indication that we are not as "civilized" as we want to believe and want others to see us in the same light, and that is most disappointing.

If you look at these kinds of laws compounded by the fact that some 30 states have enacted laws to privatize police powers. It is clear that we are seeing a trend of pawning the buck of responsibility off onto the public to do the governments bidding.

Some might argue that this is the way it should be; that we should be less dependant upon the government but at what costs; where do we draw the line in acceptable involvement of the public verses the duty of the government?

Others might argue that if we are going to privatize the duties and powers of those in government in fighting crime, then we need not pay government officials including the police when it is the public doing their jobs.

Put me on the side that says this is the way it should be. I see it as a form of tort reform. Where once it was a crime to defend yourself, now it is not. I do not see that as a bad thing.

I don't see how it is "governments bidding" at all. Governments as a rule want to grow and increase in size and scope. This neither increases the size nor scope of government and, as you argue, in fact decreases it.

Relative to other modern industrial countries, we are in fact more civilized as proven by the international criminal statistics I posted. I don't see anything in the new laws nor in the overall context of crime statistics to substantiate your points.

Where we draw the line in acceptable involvement of the public verses the duty of the government is an issue that has been debated since the founding of this country. The founding attitude was that government is a necessary evil that needs to be kept to a minimum. The new laws simply- and surprisingly- affirm that.

Debates on that issue carry into arguments of positive vs negative rights, legal positivism vs natural law etc etc.

In the end, the police are not and never were liable for protecting the public. The new laws simply make it so that the public is now NOT liable for protecting its self.

[SecTrainer]

Cocknaces

I get all that but it does not deter from the fact that none of these laws would need to exist if not for the fact that crime rates are out of hand and appropriate responses, i.e. police services, are becoming less and less. Thus, the very presence of these laws, on the claim of "necessity" gives clear indication that we are not as "civilized" as we want to believe and want others to see us in the same light, and that is most disappointing.

If you look at these kinds of laws compounded by the fact that some 30 states have enacted laws to privatize police powers. It is clear that we are seeing a trend of pawning the buck of responsibility off onto the public to do the governments bidding.

Some might argue that this is the way it should be; that we should be less dependant upon the government but at what costs; where do we draw the line in acceptable involvement of the public verses the duty of the government?

Others might argue that if we are going to privatize the duties and powers of those in government in fighting crime, then we need not pay government officials including the police when it is the public doing their jobs.

The sociological commentary regarding how "civilized" we might or might not be would require you to first define your terms...especially "civilized" and "we". The word "we" is particularly tricky.

Citizens are actually the social entity who have the fundamental right and obligation to protect their own lives and property. Self-protection is the oldest form of protection, and all other policing arrangements developed in "modern" societies are really nothing more than "hiring specialists" who do this on behalf of the citizen, either through a governmental entity ("police") or privately ("security"). They are agents for the citizenry, and they are only performing protective roles that the citizen has always had the right and obligation to perform for himself. PROTECTION BEGINS WITH THE CITIZEN, AND ALWAYS HAS.

However, it is not, and never can be, possible to hire sufficient police officers under any circumstances to guarantee that a "protective agent" will be lurking outside your door when a home invasion occurs, or standing on the street corner when a carjacking occurs.

So, it is both reasonable, practical and wise to empower the citizen (or, rather to legally recognize the inherent power that the citizen has always had) to protect himself in the eventuality that he is suddenly confronted with the prospect of violent crime in the absence of a "protective agent" or agency. There is nothing unusual about this. There is nothing alarming about this. And, it certainly is NOT a commentary as to whether society is or is not "civilized" that the government should elect to specifically (by statute) recognize and clearly elaborate the citizen's inherent right of self-defense.

[LPGuy]

...

I'm positive nobody is "arguing" any of those ideas in Missouri. The only arguments taking place exist in your head.

Everyone else in the state is accepting the law for what it is--a transfer of rights from the criminal to the victim. End of story.

[Christopherstjo]

Cocknaces

I get all that but it does not deter from the fact that none of these laws would need to exist if not for the fact that crime rates are out of hand and appropriate responses, i.e. police services, are becoming less and less. Thus, the very presence of these laws, on the claim of "necessity" gives clear indication that we are not as "civilized" as we want to believe and want others to see us in the same light, and that is most disappointing.

If you look at these kinds of laws compounded by the fact that some 30 states have enacted laws to privatize police powers. It is clear that we are seeing a trend of pawning the buck of responsibility off onto the public to do the governments bidding.

Some might argue that this is the way it should be; that we should be less dependant upon the government but at what costs; where do we draw the line in acceptable involvement of the public verses the duty of the government?

Others might argue that if we are going to privatize the duties and powers of those in government in fighting crime, then we need not pay government officials including the police when it is the public doing their jobs.

[junkyarddog]

I think that any time gun laws are passed such as ccw and what we are seeing here, in Missouri, there is always an inherent risk that it will effect security by the very nature of the fact that more people are carrying a firearm and even "law abiding people" can do the wrong thing in the heat of the moment and because of this there is a degree of inherent risks associated for s/o's.

In terms of the new gun law, again, there is a natural risk that an s/o may come across a crime scene where a 'law abiding' citizen shot a criminal - but because the s/o is unaware of the specific facts when first arriving, the s/o will respond to what he / she sees and hopefully no one else will get shot be it the s/o or the 'law abiding' citizen who has the gun in their hand and stands over a dead body, giving the appearance that they are a criminal.

I do not believe that citizens will be going on some rampage in shooting other citizens; I find no significant evidence to support this argument. I do, however, believe that the mere presence of the law signifies that crime has gotten way out of hand to the point of needing to arm citizens and giving them such broad authority in the law to effectively play judge, jury and executioner, even if only by appearance. And this is disappointing to me. It also raises the valid question in just how far we have truly advanced as a so-called "civilized society" when we need gun laws such as what now exists in Missouri and elsewhere in the U.S. because criminal conduct is out of control.

In regard to the passing of the new gun law, it is consistent with the June 12, 2007 announcement by the KCPD that the dept was giving very serious thought to mandating, from here on out, that police officers ride with partners because the crime rate has gotten too bad that there is too great a risk that police officers will be shot and killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately, what we are seeing here in KCMO because of this newly implemented policy is that the number of patrols and available officers have been cut in half and because of this, response time to calls has increased up to 4 hours except for emergencies. And herein lays a danger in citizens becoming frustrated enough that they [might] feel forced or choose to take the law into their own hands, in order to safeguard their life, liberty and property.

Hence, what we are seeing here, in KCMO, is a series of events taking place that have the potential to inter-relate in negative ways and produce deadly effects. Thus, rather than doing what needs to be done, in hiring more police officers, state officials are choosing instead to pass laws that effectively pass the buck instead.

The argument could also easily be made that "stand your ground" laws really only affirm an inherent right to self defense that has been watered down if not entirely eradicated over the years. See "duty to retreat".

The International Crime Victims Survey shows the US to not even be among the top industrialized countries in terms of crime. Especially serious crimes such as assault, rape, armed robbery, and felony theft.

Where the US IS at the top though, is the homicide rate. These statistics usually include justified homicide (in self defense). Duty to retreat means that if there is any possible way to flee an attacker who is trying to kill you, and you kill him instead of fleeing, you are guilty of murder. Or at least it is much easier to convict you of murder.

Stand your ground (policy) means that even if it was possible to retreat, and you killed your attacker (who meant you lethal or permanent harm) instead, you are not guilty of murder- or at least it is more difficult to convict you of murder.

Given that there will now be an objective way to measure murder vs killing in self defense, it will be interesting to see just where the US ends up in comparison to other countries in felonious homicide, and just how many people kill every year in self defense.

IMO it gives power back to the legitimate citizen and takes it away from the criminal.

[junkyarddog]

There's no reason that such laws should have any measurable effect on the security industry whatsoever, except that a few more bad guys who didn't get the message might make the "great transition" every year. Hallelujah, amen and may God have mercy on their souls because we sure won't.

The truth is that people who are inclined to protect their own property are probably already doing so no matter what the laws are in any given state...and others who never had any inclination to protect their own property will not suddenly become so inclined by permissive "carry" laws.

In carry-states, you might well pass right by a dozen armed citizens a day and never know it because these people are neither causing nor looking for trouble. It's really quite that simple.

The "Stand your ground" laws that limit civil liability could possibly affect us simply because the balance between lessening loss, and lessening liability could tip more in the "limiting loss" side. In other words, customers wanting a bit more aggressive security than in States where legal self defense is a policy of "duty to retreat". Most security training that I have seen centers on that "duty to retreat"- mirroring the self defense policy of their state.

[Christopherstjo]

I think that any time gun laws are passed such as ccw and what we are seeing here, in Missouri, there is always an inherent risk that it will effect security by the very nature of the fact that more people are carrying a firearm and even "law abiding people" can do the wrong thing in the heat of the moment and because of this there is a degree of inherent risks associated for s/o's.

In terms of the new gun law, again, there is a natural risk that an s/o may come across a crime scene where a 'law abiding' citizen shot a criminal - but because the s/o is unaware of the specific facts when first arriving, the s/o will respond to what he / she sees and hopefully no one else will get shot be it the s/o or the 'law abiding' citizen who has the gun in their hand and stands over a dead body, giving the appearance that they are a criminal.

I do not believe that citizens will be going on some rampage in shooting other citizens; I find no significant evidence to support this argument. I do, however, believe that the mere presence of the law signifies that crime has gotten way out of hand to the point of needing to arm citizens and giving them such broad authority in the law to effectively play judge, jury and executioner, even if only by appearance. And this is disappointing to me. It also raises the valid question in just how far we have truly advanced as a so-called "civilized society" when we need gun laws such as what now exists in Missouri and elsewhere in the U.S. because criminal conduct is out of control.

In regard to the passing of the new gun law, it is consistent with the June 12, 2007 announcement by the KCPD that the dept was giving very serious thought to mandating, from here on out, that police officers ride with partners because the crime rate has gotten too bad that there is too great a risk that police officers will be shot and killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately, what we are seeing here in KCMO because of this newly implemented policy is that the number of patrols and available officers have been cut in half and because of this, response time to calls has increased up to 4 hours except for emergencies. And herein lays a danger in citizens becoming frustrated enough that they [might] feel forced or choose to take the law into their own hands, in order to safeguard their life, liberty and property.

Hence, what we are seeing here, in KCMO, is a series of events taking place that have the potential to inter-relate in negative ways and produce deadly effects. Thus, rather than doing what needs to be done, in hiring more police officers, state officials are choosing instead to pass laws that effectively pass the buck instead.

[N. A. Corbier]

I don't think it will affect us at all. Why would security officers go "nuts" because of a stand your ground law?

Why would they go "nuts" armed with tasers? Or firearms, or pepper spray?

Fearmongering is an art.