XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: murff@warlock.org   
      
   On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:35:41 -0400, Scout wrote:   
      
   > "Murff"  wrote in message   
   > news:lke062$42j$3@dont-email.me...   
      
   > So why would you propose that we need more such sanctions (ie testing)   
   > of people who aren't the source of the problem.   
      
   For much the same reason that I feel a bit more comfortable about using   
   the roads, knowing that other people using the roads have some amount of   
   training and have demonstrated some degree of competence.   
      
   I'm entirely comfortable with the idea of what I suppose amounts to   
   "crowd sourcing" law enforcement via an armed citizenry. Provided that   
   citizenry knows what it is doing.   
      
   > It's inherent in the fact that you have to obtain governmental   
   > authorization.   
      
   *I* have to, yes. It doesn't bother me.   
      
   >  I don't know what shooters do regarding insurance in   
   >> the US. But it would be possible for example for a private initiative   
   >> to recognise classes and the like as part of an insurance scheme.   
   >   
   > If so then there is no need to involve government in that, much less   
   > have them mandate such testing be performed.   
      
   Well, erm, that is pretty much what I said. Government isn't involved.   
   Nor for example is government involved in the decision that my deer   
   hunting syndicate made that, before anybody was let in, they needed to be   
   able to demonstrate a certain level of qualification and competence. We   
   manage that ourselves.   
      
   > IOW, we don't need more gun control laws. We simply need enforcement   
   > against those who break the laws that already exist.   
   >   
   > Which, I will note NYC still doesn't really do.   
      
   OK, here's a question. In what way are the laws not enforced ?   
      
   I'm not trying to be tricky here - it is a serious question. As I see it   
   laws can fail to be enforced in two general sorts of way:   
      
   1. That they're overlooked. That could include to avoid police paperwork,   
   because an offence is very minor, or active corruption.   
      
   2. That some other law (or laws) get in the way: clever lawyers getting   
   people off on technicalities.   
      
   > No, because enforcement of laws against using a gun in crime doesn't   
   > violate the 2nd. Where you tell innocent law abiding people they can't   
   > even own a gun...that's a 2nd Amendment violation.   
      
   But that happens all the time due to NFA and GCA. It also happens with   
   people who have been convicted but have "paid their debt to society" and   
   have "gone straight".   
      
   >>> The issue isn't that legal owners are such a problem, but rather we   
   >>> generally refuse to hammer those who are the problem when they are   
   >>> caught misusing a firearm in crime.   
   >>   
   >> I disagree. I think the problem is that you don't catch them.   
   >   
   > Actually we do. The gun charges are often among the first to be dropped   
   > or plea bargained away.   
      
   Dropped, why ?   
      
   > Proof provided by programs like Project Exile show that we do catch   
   > them, and when we actually enforce these laws and prosecute them for   
   > those violations....violent crime drops drastically. Why? Because those   
   > who engage in violent crime are 1) either behind bars for longer periods   
   > of time or 2) aren't as willing to risk the longer prison terms and   
   > switch to crimes which carry less actual punishment.   
      
   Yes, we did this with Mr Sandman. The references he provided showed   
   positive results but didn't provide information about the deterrent   
   effect of increased certainty of being caught.   
      
   >   
   >> Or at least   
   >> that they don't believe you'll catch them.   
   >   
   > They may...but when you put them away for the federal mandatory minimum   
   > of 5 years just for the firearms offense...it doesn't really matter what   
   > they believe. But strict enforcement and actual prison terms being   
   > served have shown to produce a significant impact either way.   
      
   Not entirely clear what you mean here - but then that is probably   
   reasonable since enforcement and sentencing can't really be separated.   
   OTOH I note (or at least I assume) that those sentences were served under   
   an unmodified prison regime, rather than one subject to any attempt to be   
   particularly horrid to the inmates.   
      
   >   
   >> One of the reasons for the   
   >> decline of capital punishment was that whilst in theory its severity   
   >> should stop the crimes for which it is indicated, it didn't actually   
   >> work.   
   >   
   > Not really. It's just that such a person can no longer be trusted to be   
   > released into society and thus there is little or no point to keep them   
   > locked up.   
      
   There is. Capital punishment in the US is apparently about 3x as costly   
   by the time you get round to bumping them off ...   
      
   > However, while I support capital   
   > punishment in theory, I generally oppose capital punishment being   
   > imposed simply because of the great potential for error. IMO, it should   
   > be limited only to those cases in which the severity of the crime   
   > warrants it, and that the defendant isn't just guilty beyond a   
   > reasonable doubt, but known to be guilty beyond any doubt   
      
   ... and I'm entirely with you on that position.   
      
   >> That is because the deterrent isn't how beastly you can be to a   
   >> criminal once you've caught and convicted him.   
   >   
   > Agreed, but that does factor into it.   
      
   I'll grant that it can do. But I'd suggest that it has more of an effect   
   on the middle classes than it does on people who don't have air   
   conditioning or jobs or pleasant home lives anyway.   
      
      
   > ... you should expect to have a   
   > lot of your rights curtailed even after prison until/unless you can   
   > prove to society that you can be trusted.   
      
   A test :-)  Administered by whom ?   
      
   > IMO, I think violent felons   
   > should be RFID chipped, and police given detectors for the chips, and   
   > such individuals are subject to search at any time for any reason the   
   > officer deems is reasonable, provided that such search doesn't amount to   
   > on going harassment.   
      
   I think I can understand the sentiment. But I'd be *very* wary of   
   authorising politicians and police to do anything like that. Also, there   
   is a danger in becoming over-reliant on too-easily-circumvented   
   technology.   
      
   Who gets to define "ongoing harassment" ?   
      
   >> Indeed, *particular* beastliness   
   >> becomes a mark of honour.   
   >   
   > Who cares if it works.   
      
   You may well end up caring if it results in unintended consequences, as   
   these things tend to. And a number of such consequences come to mind:   
      
   - If you're relying on constitutional constraints to protect a government   
   from using these things: RFIDs, rock-breaking holidays and the rest on   
   *you* then that constitutional environment is also available to the   
   convicts. That involves lawyers so at the very least makes things a lot   
   more expensive. It probably also limits just how horrid you can be   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)