Gun-free zones and how to regulate them (threadjack from controlling bleeding)

[WestSider]

Kut I have you beat, it only took me 7 pages to get called a statist in the "respect for LEO's" thread last fall, took you a full 8 pages to get called one here!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Kut (waits for the various definitions of "well regulated."

It's been quite awhile since I studied the history on that, but in general it meant well-drilled and practiced in it's skills, and lead by an effective officer. Basically meant good-to-go when called upon.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Kut I have you beat, it only took me 7 pages to get called a statist in the "respect for LEO's" thread last fall, took you a full 8 pages to get called one here!

In all fairness, since I'm the only one that used anything close to the term, what I said was that he was NOT so far gone into statism. Many of our members here do believe the State has the right answer on some things, whether "gun control" or "drug control", or "abortion control". Most people are going to be more in favor of statism than I am, at least in some areas. Only a very few are going to go beyond where I am on that continuum, which is not to make it a contest, but simply to define positions. I saw a wonderful term used once, which is in opposition to "anarchy", which would be "minarchy", that is, a minimalist government, existing not to raise revenue, not to "control" people, and not to wait in hiding to "gotcha!" people who happen to somehow fall within the overbroad scope of a poorly-written or more-poorly-designed law. Be honest: As a cop, do you want to be out on traffic duty, just shooting radar and earning money for the state or your community, depending how you write the citation, and how many of them you write? Or would you prefer to be stopping actions that actually cause real, demonstrable harm to your community's citizens: Crimes like homicide, rape, and battery?

I liken it to working in an ED, or for that matter, on an ambulance: We get into emergency services out of a desire to help our fellow man, but it would be disingenuous to say that we aren't all, to some extent, adrenaline junkies at some point in our careers. Yet, we get called for the guy who meets you at the street with a suitcase packed (aka "Samsonitis") or the guy who calls for the fifth time this week, and it's only Tuesday. His complaint is that he tried to kill himself by, instead of putting sugar in his morning coffee.... he put SALT! But he used the magic words, "I tried to kill myself by..." and so he gets an ED evaluation. (Yes, I have seen both of these cases.)We get those and either someone else gets the call for the bad car accident or the cardiac arrest, or it hits on someone else's shift. In the ED, we might get the "frequent flyer" who we see multiple times every week, looking for drugs or attention or both, overloading the system so that we don't have staff available to help care for that 30 year old heart attack or 20-some-odd burn patient that just came in. (Yep. Those, too.)

We have too many laws. That's not a cop's fault, nor does anyone blame you guys for them. What many people, myself included, find.... troubling.... is when we find an officer who will happily crack on a citizen who's only "crime" is under, as noted upthread, mala prohibita: Bad because someone said it was; bad because it's not allowed. I don't know when things changed, when an officer went from being Malloy and Reed to being Sipowicz. (Obviously, I'm speaking metaphorically, not literally) I don't know if there ever was a Malloy/Reed or a Friday/Gannon time. I know there's a reason that Miranda became law. I know that even with Miranda, we still have our Petersons and our Harlesses. I also know and am quick to point out that those are not the rule but the exception. Maybe there are Malloys, Reeds, Fridays, and Gannons, too, that also are the exception, and everyone else is just somewhere in the middle.

In the middle is where I think Kut is. Perhaps closer to the statism end on some things; If this thread is any indication, definitely closer in some areas I wish he was not, but I'm not sure this thread indicates his real position, vis a vis such things as "Go through this neighborhood, collect every gun you find. We know there's at least two in each house on this block." I'd love to think that every person in a badge would take an order like that and bust the guy issuing it. I know that's not realistic to think that all of you would. Would it be fair to say that most would? Half? Some? A few? I'd hope that "none" would be as unrealistic as "all".

Stopping the guns isn't working. We don't, today, have an absolute test to show intent, and that's what it would take to legitimately stop the people who are doing harm. Until we have that test, we're going to have some abuses of authority and power. We're going to have people focusing their attention on a black rifle when the black heart is the problem. That, BTW, is a reference to evil, not to skin color, just in case anyone is trying to misunderstand me.

So back to the original point, is Kutnupe a statist? Not wholly, nor, I think, are most cops. Or most non-cops. I think that's what some people in power want to change. It's not namecalling. It's identifying positions claimed in discussion and where they fall between the absolute power of the state to do whatever, vs that power and the ability to remove it from those who abuse it, vested in the People. (and no, I don't, nor do I think he or you, hate liberty (just to head that one off.))

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

Well. That was interesting. What about private property?

 

[WestSider]

In all fairness, I didn't read the entire novel that is this thread. Suffice to say (as I have said before) I'll never be in agreement that all laws that don't deal with the immediate bodily harm of someone should be thrown out, sorry sovereign citizens if this offends you. There will always be the need to have laws that deal with such things that might LEAD to damage to someone's property or person (Speeding, OWI, drug use, etc.). I've heard all this before... Police should be out stopping violent crimes instead of doing traffic stops and harassing poor Jimmy for smoking a little weed.

For the running radar example, I get absolutely ZERO incentive to write speeding tickets, none. Would I run traffic while a violent domestic was going on across town? Of course not.... do I think we need to have speed limits and they should be enforced? ABSOLUTELY!!! People get killed in auto accidents all the time because of nothing more than someone speeding, somehow this is lost on people when it's THEM who is getting the ticket. It's OK though, I've only been a cop for a short while but I'm already used to everyone telling me how I should do my job. It's something I have learned that is just a reality of this line of work. You are going to constantly get armchair quarterbacked by people that do not have the first clue what the job entails, just comes with the territory when you are by nature in a position of authority.

Here is another one I love to hear: The war on drugs isn't working so let's just throw in the towel and legalize everything. So when this guy's house gets burged by the meth head down the street, I should say sorry sir this is a property issue, I'm regulated to only deal with the detection and prevention of violent crimes.. Sure that would go over great!!

As for the gun free zones, I am firmly against them. In the jail example, if the only argument is that people can't use the lock boxes for their guns like we do; my opinion would be fine use the lock box. Unfortunately I'm not in charge at the jails to grant this, but I would if it allowed people to carry to the jail and when they leave. I don't think the police should have the right to carry anywhere that a citizen doesn't which is why I find it insane that schools are gun free zones.

On the gun confiscation point, it's impossible to say how many officers would throw in the towel on that. I will stand here and say for the record as I've said before that when the day comes that I'm asked to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns, that is the last day I'm a cop, period. I have another career I can fall back on if needed (one in which I can make a lot more money). I will never sacrifice what I know is right to hold onto this job, not worth it. I took this job to be a benefit to good honest hard working people, not an enemy of them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

In all fairness, I didn't read the entire novel that is this thread. Suffice to say (as I have said before) I'll never be in agreement that all laws that don't deal with the immediate bodily harm of someone should be thrown out, sorry sovereign citizens if this offends you. There will always be the need to have laws that deal with such things that might LEAD to damage to someone's property or person (Speeding, OWI, drug use, etc.). I've heard all this before... Police should be out stopping violent crimes instead of doing traffic stops and harassing poor Jimmy for smoking a little weed.

For the running radar example, I get absolutely ZERO incentive to write speeding tickets, none. Would I run traffic while a violent domestic was going on across town? Of course not.... do I think we need to have speed limits and they should be enforced? ABSOLUTELY!!! People get killed in auto accidents all the time because of nothing more than someone speeding, somehow this is lost on people when it's THEM who is getting the ticket. It's OK though, I've only been a cop for a short while but I'm already used to everyone telling me how I should do my job. It's something I have learned that is just a reality of this line of work. You are going to constantly get armchair quarterbacked by people that do not have the first clue what the job entails, just comes with the territory when you are by nature in a position of authority.

Here is another one I love to hear: The war on drugs isn't working so let's just throw in the towel and legalize everything. So when this guy's house gets burged by the meth head down the street, I should say sorry sir this is a property issue, I'm regulated to only deal with the detection and prevention of violent crimes.. Sure that would go over great!!

As for the gun free zones, I am firmly against them. In the jail example, if the only argument is that people can't use the lock boxes for their guns like we do; my opinion would be fine use the lock box. Unfortunately I'm not in charge at the jails to grant this, but I would if it allowed people to carry to the jail and when they leave. I don't think the police should have the right to carry anywhere that a citizen doesn't which is why I find it insane that schools are gun free zones.

On the gun confiscation point, it's impossible to say how many officers would throw in the towel on that. I will stand here and say for the record as I've said before that when the day comes that I'm asked to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns, that is the last day I'm a cop, period. I have another career I can fall back on if needed (one in which I can make a lot more money). I will never sacrifice what I know is right to hold onto this job, not worth it. I took this job to be a benefit to good honest hard working people, not an enemy of them.

Quoted because it should be read at least twice. There are a couple of points contained within with which I may not agree completely, but this is a good explanation of reasonable positions taken by an officer who is taking the right reasons and motives to work with him, including and especially holding a position in law enforcement for the purpose of making the community better.

 

[Bill of Rights]

No sovereign citizens here that I know of, but that we have too many laws is a given. If we're going to cut that number down, we have to have a point where we say "This one goes too far", vs "That one is OK." There are lots of things that "might lead to" damage to person or property, among them, the shooting sports. I'm not of the opinion that we should "make everyone safe" by putting everyone in a safe little bubble and "protecting" them by not allowing people to live their lives. The meth head down the street... I don't care why he comes into my home, but I do think if he could, for example, go down to Walgreen's and buy a bag of weed off the shelf, much as he could buy a bag of carrots or a bottle of tylenol, he'd be less likely to go robbing houses or even, for that matter, the local Walgreen's. Of note, tylenol is a terrible overdose; untreated, it kills your liver. It has its uses, though, and while it could cause harm, and does, we still allow it to be sold. As to your comment about doing nothing because it's a property issue, again, I don't care that he's on meth or whatever or that he's clean and sober as can be. What I care about is that he committed a crime that directly impacts another person adversely. "Malum in Se", would be the term of art.

I'll be, and have been, the first to admit that I'm not a cop. I don't know everything the job entails. I am a paramedic and an ER nurse, though, so I do know a bit of it.

I won't ask you to answer this question, but I will pose it so you can think about an answer: You said that when the day comes you are asked to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns, you'll quit. So what happens when, as I was told by someone who was there during Katrina, you're given false intel, directing you to confiscate because the people in this house are druggies, or potential terrorists, or whatever? I think I recall the excuse in NOLA was "looters", but don't quote me on that. Regardless, by the time you've gone in and found the truth, it's too late- the dog is dead and the kids have eaten enough OC to choke a horse. So what happens to the people who provided the false intel on that? They say, Oops! and it's quickly brushed under the rug. Once it's there, they can celebrate privately that there are more guns that used to belong to law-abiding gun owners.

There has to be a compromise that protects individuals' rights while still allowing for those responsible to pay for their actions

Blessings,
Bill

Blessings,
Bill

In all fairness, I didn't read the entire novel that is this thread. Suffice to say (as I have said before) I'll never be in agreement that all laws that don't deal with the immediate bodily harm of someone should be thrown out, sorry sovereign citizens if this offends you. There will always be the need to have laws that deal with such things that might LEAD to damage to someone's property or person (Speeding, OWI, drug use, etc.). I've heard all this before... Police should be out stopping violent crimes instead of doing traffic stops and harassing poor Jimmy for smoking a little weed.

For the running radar example, I get absolutely ZERO incentive to write speeding tickets, none. Would I run traffic while a violent domestic was going on across town? Of course not.... do I think we need to have speed limits and they should be enforced? ABSOLUTELY!!! People get killed in auto accidents all the time because of nothing more than someone speeding, somehow this is lost on people when it's THEM who is getting the ticket. It's OK though, I've only been a cop for a short while but I'm already used to everyone telling me how I should do my job. It's something I have learned that is just a reality of this line of work. You are going to constantly get armchair quarterbacked by people that do not have the first clue what the job entails, just comes with the territory when you are by nature in a position of authority.

Here is another one I love to hear: The war on drugs isn't working so let's just throw in the towel and legalize everything. So when this guy's house gets burged by the meth head down the street, I should say sorry sir this is a property issue, I'm regulated to only deal with the detection and prevention of violent crimes.. Sure that would go over great!!

As for the gun free zones, I am firmly against them. In the jail example, if the only argument is that people can't use the lock boxes for their guns like we do; my opinion would be fine use the lock box. Unfortunately I'm not in charge at the jails to grant this, but I would if it allowed people to carry to the jail and when they leave. I don't think the police should have the right to carry anywhere that a citizen doesn't which is why I find it insane that schools are gun free zones.

On the gun confiscation point, it's impossible to say how many officers would throw in the towel on that. I will stand here and say for the record as I've said before that when the day comes that I'm asked to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns, that is the last day I'm a cop, period. I have another career I can fall back on if needed (one in which I can make a lot more money). I will never sacrifice what I know is right to hold onto this job, not worth it. I took this job to be a benefit to good honest hard working people, not an enemy of them.

 

[WestSider]

Thanks guys for the honest feedback and good points Bill.

I respect your opinion but I cannot agree with you on the drug thing, While I don't have statistics, I can say with pretty good certainty that probably 80 to 90 percent of the calls I get, everything from theft to battery, in some way ties back to alcohol and/or drugs either directly or indirectly. I in no way believe that making weed legal to buy at CVS would stop people from using meth, can't get there. In the meth head example, my point was that if this guy wasn't a meth head he wouldn't be breaking into the house in the first place. Believe me the police don't want to get involved in people's lives any more than they have to. However, I have seen first hand how hard drugs can instantly change what was a normal law abiding decent person into something completely different, so possession and/or distribution of drugs does lead to damage to property and/or bodily injury to persons in my opinion because I see it all the time.

The Katrina example is a good one of how somehow the ball got dropped, and I don't have a great answer for that one. I don't know all the details but I understand that in an effort to "protect" people, law enforcement actually disarmed lawful people and left them defenseless which is beyond unacceptable. As for the rank and file Officer, he/she tries to operate with a good faith belief that what they are doing is lawful and I think someone up the chain has to be held accountable that one.. but I don't know all the details. Can't say what I would have done there because I wasn't there but it's worth thinking about for sure.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Thanks guys for the honest feedback and good points Bill.

I respect your opinion but I cannot agree with you on the drug thing, While I don't have statistics, I can say with pretty good certainty that probably 80 to 90 percent of the calls I get, everything from theft to battery, in some way ties back to alcohol and/or drugs either directly or indirectly. I in no way believe that making weed legal to buy at CVS would stop people from using meth, can't get there. In the meth head example, my point was that if this guy wasn't a meth head he wouldn't be breaking into the house in the first place. Believe me the police don't want to get involved in people's lives any more than they have to. However, I have seen first hand how hard drugs can instantly change what was a normal law abiding decent person into something completely different, so possession and/or distribution of drugs does lead to damage to property and/or bodily injury to persons in my opinion because I see it all the time.

The Katrina example is a good one of how somehow the ball got dropped, and I don't have a great answer for that one. I don't know all the details but I understand that in an effort to "protect" people, law enforcement actually disarmed lawful people and left them defenseless which is beyond unacceptable. As for the rank and file Officer, he/she tries to operate with a good faith belief that what they are doing is lawful and I think someone up the chain has to be held accountable that one.. but I don't know all the details. Can't say what I would have done there because I wasn't there but it's worth thinking about for sure.

While I find everything about illegal drug use abhorrent, I have questions about the government functioning as a nanny. Another point where I see a viable question for which I do not have an answer is how, say, across the board legalization in the spirit of letting the self-destructive do so, would affect the price of hard drugs, hence the secondary crimes used to finance it. My understanding is that meth costs little of nothing to produce aside from the secondary costs, like paying lawyers.

 

[jamil]

While I find everything about illegal drug use abhorrent, I have questions about the government functioning as a nanny. Another point where I see a viable question for which I do not have an answer is how, say, across the board legalization in the spirit of letting the self-destructive do so, would affect the price of hard drugs, hence the secondary crimes used to finance it. My understanding is that meth costs little of nothing to produce aside from the secondary costs, like paying lawyers.

I'd ask this: How likely is it that someone can use the banned thing and not directly harm others though its use? It's hard to argue that most marijuana users harm others. Maybe a few higher accidents. Not many. And they can be held liable for their accidents. When we get into drugs like Meth, the likelihood of causing harm increases a lot. I know I've gone around with various libertarians on this, but I'd draw the line at drugs like Meth. Other hard drugs might cause a lot of harm for the user, and as long as society isn't required to pay for it, if that's what they want to do with their lives, it's not my business.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'd ask this: How likely is it that someone can use the banned thing and not directly harm others though its use? It's hard to argue that most marijuana users harm others. Maybe a few higher accidents. Not many. And they can be held liable for their accidents. When we get into drugs like Meth, the likelihood of causing harm increases a lot. I know I've gone around with various libertarians on this, but I'd draw the line at drugs like Meth. Other hard drugs might cause a lot of harm for the user, and as long as society isn't required to pay for it, if that's what they want to do with their lives, it's not my business.

As I see it, there will always be collateral damage among those near certain types of person. The question is whether we are willing to become part of the collateral damage through being taxed for the highly ineffective war on drugs and also through being stripped of our rights by the same effort. Then we have to address the extent to which property crime against uninvolved persons to finance drug habits would be as bad without artificial scarcity through prohibition. Personally, I have arrived at the conclusion that the 'war on drugs' is costing me too much.

 

[WestSider]

We will never be able to agree on this topic so I'm not really interested in debating it any further. I'll close on these two things:

1) You won't find too many people who work directly with addicts that think legalization of all drugs is a good idea because they understand the mind of an addict.

2) If I was going to make my list of things to complain about my tax money being wasted on, the "war on drugs" isn't even in my top 10.