Gun Control and Mass Murder

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Felix »

GE Morton - True, there is little consensus about treatments for mental illness but the diagnosis of psychopathology is fairly straight-forward and noncontroversial.

What is your point, that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership at all, every adult should have the right to own a gun regardless of mental competence or criminal background?
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by LuckyR »

GE Morton wrote:
Fooloso4 wrote:

(Nested quote removed.)


I do not know the specifics.
The 5th Amendment declares that ". . . no person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . "

"Due process of law" means, conviction of a crime by a jury, consistently with all provisions of the 5th and 6th Amendments. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional liberty right. Hence any process which does not satisfy those provisions if not "due process."
You are overstating your competence in Constitutional law. Whole sections of legal scholarship by national experts debate these definitions.
"As usual... it depends."
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by GE Morton »

Felix wrote:. . . the diagnosis of psychopathology is fairly straight-forward and noncontroversial.
The DSM is revised every year, primarily by adding new "disorders." Occasionally one is removed, such as the classification of homosexuality as a "disorder."
What is your point, that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership at all, every adult should have the right to own a gun regardless of mental competence or criminal background?
Not at all. Persons who have been convicted of a crime involving violence should be barred from owning or possessing firearms, at least for a time (perhaps 7-10 years after release). Persons who have been committed to a mental institution for a condition involving violence should likewise be barred, until that condition is remedied. The point is to limit that prohibition to persons who have demonstrated unlawful violent behavior, and not infringe the rights of persons merely because someone thinks they might cause problems.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Fooloso4 »

GE Morton:
The question remains: If the judge decides, based on guesswork, that Alfie is a danger to the public, why not just preemptively lock him up?
The judge can order a psych evaluation. If Alfie is detained and not allowed to leave he is in effect being preemptively locked up. He cannot, however, simply be thrown in a jail cell and treated like a criminal because, as you correctly pointed out, he has not committed a crime.
Methinks you don't understand what "probable cause" means. It means that there is reason to believe a a crime has been committed, and that Alfie was involved in it. It does not mean that it is probable that Alfie will commit a crime.
There is a distinction between criminal and civil court. This falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court since no crime has been committed:
Civil cases can deprive a person of property, but they cannot deprive a person of liberty. In civil court a plaintiff must possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... ble+cause)
Is the right of free speech sacrosanct?
No, there are laws against libel. Revealing state secrets may be treason. National security takes precedence over free speech.
The right to practice religion?
There are restrictions regarding what one can and cannot do in the name of religion.
The right to counsel if accused of a crime?
I know of no reason why the right to counsel can be or should be legally denied.

Your examples show why each right and each potential violation of that right must be decided on the merits of the case in question.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by GE Morton »

Fooloso4 wrote:
The judge can order a psych evaluation. If Alfie is detained and not allowed to leave he is in effect being preemptively locked up. He cannot, however, simply be thrown in a jail cell and treated like a criminal because, as you correctly pointed out, he has not committed a crime.
A temporary detention, yes. Every arrest involves a temporary detention. A permanent detention, or a permanent prohibition on possessing a firearm, is a different matter. In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior. The subject may present counter arguments and evidence, and must be provided with counsel at State expense, if he cannot afford counsel. Commitment orders must be reviewed periodically, to determine if the danger continues.
There is a distinction between criminal and civil court. This falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court since no crime has been committed:
Civil cases can deprive a person of property, but they cannot deprive a person of liberty. In civil court a plaintiff must possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... ble+cause)
Yes indeed. As with criminal cases, the plaintiff must show probable cause that the defendant has committed a tortious act against the plaintiff. He cannot bring a suit based on speculation that the defendant might injure him.
No, there are laws against libel. Revealing state secrets may be treason. National security takes precedence over free speech.
Yes, there are. Libel laws and State secrets laws take effect after those abuses of free speech have occurred. They do not restrict speech preemptively, as your gun restriction would do.That would be a "prior restraint," of which the Supreme Court takes a very dim view. That parallel is exactly on point: you may be punished for damaging speech, but you may not be prevented from speaking. A court may not forbid a writer from owning a typewriter or word processor because he might libel someone.
There are restrictions regarding what one can and cannot do in the name of religion.
Of course. The First Amendment does not allow you to violate or threaten others' rights in the name of religion. Nor does the 2nd allow you to shoot people at will.

Whether there are limits to the exercise of constitutional rights is not the issue here. Of course there are. The issue is whether one of those rights may be restricted preemptively, in the absence of any abuse of it by the citizen.
Your examples show why each right and each potential violation of that right must be decided on the merits of the case in question.
In every case you need to show actual violations, not "potential" violations.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Fooloso4 »

GE Morton:
In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior.
This is exactly what is required in the case of taking someone’s gun away.
… probable cause …
You are right. I used the term incorrectly. I should have said something like - when deem to be justified by a judge based on circumstances and evidence.
Whether there are limits to the exercise of constitutional rights is not the issue here. Of course there are. The issue is whether one of those rights may be restricted preemptively, in the absence of any abuse of it by the citizen.
See what you are quoted saying above, first paragraph.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by GE Morton »

Fooloso4 wrote:
See what you are quoted saying above, first paragraph.
What I said in that paragraph was, "In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Fooloso4 »

GE Morton:
What I said in that paragraph was, "In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior.
Of course it is based on evidence of past behavior. It is the change in behavior that leads others to be concerned that the person in question may be a threat. You call this guesswork, but it is the same kind of guesswork that serves as the basis for having someone committed as it is for having their gun taken away.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by GE Morton »

Fooloso4 wrote:GE Morton:
What I said in that paragraph was, "In the US an involuntary commitment requires a hearing, and the petitioner must show that the person to be committed is poses a danger to himself or others, as evidenced by past behavior.
Of course it is based on evidence of past behavior. It is the change in behavior that leads others to be concerned that the person in question may be a threat. You call this guesswork, but it is the same kind of guesswork that serves as the basis for having someone committed as it is for having their gun taken away.
If the past behavior includes violence against another person or threatening someone with a weapon I'll agree with you.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Steve3007 »

G E Morton's central point in this discussion seems to be that depriving a person of their freedom or property should only be done on the basis of their past explicitly criminal behaviour. The key point seems to be whether that behaviour was legally recognized as being criminal - i.e. they were convicted of a crime.

Clearly the primary purpose of legally depriving any person of their freedom or property is to prevent something bad from happening in the future. That always involves looking at a person's past behaviour and extrapolating to possible future behaviour - basic Inductive reasoning. Where Fooloso4 appears to differ from G E Morton is in thinking that this past behaviour does not actually necessarily need to have resulted in a past criminal conviction. G E Morton seems to draw a parallel with "prior restraint" and points out that, in the US at least, this has been rejected by the Supreme Court.

So it seems that the crux of the disagreement here is whether a psychological assessment based on past behaviour is enough in itself to limit firearms possession or whether the person in question has to have actually committed a violent crime and been found guilty of that crime in a court of law.

Another issue is the type of firearms that people should be allowed to possess. As a general matter of principle, should people who have not previously broken any laws still be required to justify the reason why they wish to own a particular type of weapon? Should it be demonstrably true that the weapon is made for self defense? Or, alternatively, if I wish to own a weapon of mass destruction with no obvious self-defensive use is that my business and nothing to do with the government? Are my reasons for wanting to own such a weapon entirely a private matter?
User avatar
Rederic
Posts: 589
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: South coast of England

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Rederic »

When a US citizen is shown to have been radicalised, but has not broken any laws so far. Does this mean that he should be able to buy military grade weapons en masse, just to appease the NRA?
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by GE Morton »

Steve3007 wrote:G E Morton's central point in this discussion seems to be that depriving a person of their freedom or property should only be done on the basis of their past explicitly criminal behaviour. The key point seems to be whether that behaviour was legally recognized as being criminal - i.e. they were convicted of a crime.
Not necessarily. While a conviction for crime involving violence is prima facie evidence of violent tendencies and a firm ground for forbidding possession of firearms, it is not the only possible ground. Evidence of certain behavioral disorders, plus evidence that the subject has exhibited violence tendencies, such as attacking or threatening another person, especially with a firearm, may also be grounds, even if no criminal charges were filed. What is not sufficient is the mere opinion of a shrink that the subject is dangerous, without any evidence that he has actually injured or threatened anyone.
Another issue is the type of firearms that people should be allowed to possess. As a general matter of principle, should people who have not previously broken any laws still be required to justify the reason why they wish to own a particular type of weapon?
Should we be required to "justify" why we should be allowed free speech? In general, behaviors that violate or threaten no one else's rights require no justification. What requires justification is restricting those behaviors, the presumption (in free countries) being that persons may live their lives in any way they choose, may do anything they wish to do, as long as they violate no one else's rights.
Or, alternatively, if I wish to own a weapon of mass destruction with no obvious self-defensive use is that my business and nothing to do with the government? Are my reasons for wanting to own such a weapon entirely a private matter?
No. Unlike personal firearms, weapons of mass destruction, if ever used, by definition pose risks to others.

-- Updated April 18th, 2017, 10:26 am to add the following --
Rederic wrote:When a US citizen is shown to have been radicalised, but has not broken any laws so far. Does this mean that he should be able to buy military grade weapons en masse, just to appease the NRA?
I'd love to hear what you would count as evidence that someone has been "radicalized." Have passionate, strident demonstrators against Trump been "radicalized"?

What is a "military grade weapon"? An M1 carbine? A .45 cal. automatic pistol?

Persons should be allowed to buy and possess weapons because they have a natural and constitutional right to do so, not to "appease the NRA."
User avatar
Rederic
Posts: 589
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: South coast of England

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Rederic »

I'm sorry, but you're so hung up about your rights, that you've lost your common sense.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.
User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 739
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Mark1955 »

An alternative question you Americans might ask yourselves is why with a gun in every household, Switzerland has so little violent gun crime.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Gun Control and Mass Murder

Post by Felix »

An alternative question you Americans might ask yourselves is why with a gun in every household, Switzerland has so little violent gun crime.
Hardly "every household," but Swiss gun laws are much stricter than ours:

"Switzerland has strict gun ownership, registration, carry, and transport rules. Guns must be registered, you need a permit to buy them, you need a permit to transport them (unloaded only, and only from home to the shooting range, armory, etc, no carrying it around freely) and you need a special, hard to get permit to publicly carry them."
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021