Heh, I’m fairly certain that in some states if you sit in the driver’s seat of a car while intoxicated and your keys are within reach/in the ignition you can be arrested.
Yes, in my state if the keys are in the ignition that is considered “operating the vehicle”. I don’t agree with that personally.
Yes, in my state if the keys are in the ignition that is considered “operating the vehicle”. I don’t agree with that personally.
I don’t know if this question is out of bounds, but since you don’t agree with that law, would you still enforce it as a police officer?
I don’t know if this question is out of bounds, but since you don’t agree with that law, would you still enforce it as a police officer?
Nop.
Does putting the word “ignorant” in a reply to me make you feel better?
Feel better than what?
If anyone had posted anything as ignorant as that, I would’ve made the same comments. Get the chip(s) off your shoulder.
I don’t know if this question is out of bounds, but since you don’t agree with that law, would you still enforce it as a police officer?
Yes. I don’t go out of my way to do that, but I still believe the rule of law is important.
First Pacman Jones, then Vick, now Plaxico.
Mammon is right that a lot of dopes are also involved in sports…Or perhaps the severity of sport makes them that way. Baseball players certainly don’t seem as careless and stupid.
And the significant difference here is that driving a car IS using the car dangerously. In other words, they are automatically engaging in the potentially harmful act while driving. Carrying a firearm is not the same as using a firearm.
And, what, exactly would you be doing carrying a firearm?
Your line of reasoning is the same line of reasoning that outlaws drugs. It tries to say that since there seems to be a correlation between drugs and violent crime, that drugs should be illegal.
My line of reasoning is that you should be able to use your property in a way that doesn’t put others at non-consented risk and danger. Does carrying a firearm around do that? To a very marginal extent, yes. But it’s only marginal enough to ignore because you are assuming the owner of the firearm is going to exercise rational and proper judgment when using it and that there are safety measures on the firearm.
So the question is how much does alcohol or other drugs impend on that judgment and does it raise the risk factor enough to turn it into a situation that violates the right of others around them.
When I own a nightclub, I’ll make it a rule to disallow guns on the premises.
And, what, exactly would you be doing carrying a firearm?
That varies per individual. Do you understand the distinction between possessing something and using something?
When I own a nightclub, I’ll make it a rule to disallow guns on the premises.
And I agree that would be a proper PRIVATE response. I’m discussing the issue of whether or not a law should exist that does the same thing.
Yes. I don’t go out of my way to do that, but I still believe the rule of law is important.
Thank you for your reply.
First Pacman Jones, then Vick, now Plaxico.
Wow! Three players out of thousands, over several years. You’re right! That makes them all rotten to the core! 
Mammon is right that a lot of dopes are also involved in sports…Or perhaps the severity of sport makes them that way. Baseball players certainly don’t seem as careless and stupid.
If there is a higher rate of criminal activity in certain sports or fields of employment, I would say that it is probably due to the types of people that type of employment attracts. When you grow up in a ghetto and have a bad philosophy pounded into your head since birth, you’re good at basketball (for example) and believe that’s your only way out, then you’re going to grow up to be a good basketball player with an awful philosophy. Couple that with power, fame and fortune, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster, which the media thrives on.
I still say it’s an unfair judgement (and as ignorant as tribalism/racism) to lump all athletes into one category. It’s as bad and as frustrating as people saying all Objectivists are arrogant cult members, or that all college students are dumb hippies. (Which I doubt either Ryan or Justin consider themselves.)
That varies per individual. Do you understand the distinction between possessing something and using something?
Do you think I’m a moron?! :lol:
Of course I understand the difference between possessing and using. There is also using something recklessly. I’m musing here about whether alcohol increases the chances of someone using something recklessly. In this case guns. If so, what should be done about it? Which leads too…
And I agree that would be a proper PRIVATE response. I’m discussing the issue of whether or not a law should exist that does the same thing.
That’s the point. It’s like a check list. “Can be morally repulsed by this? Check.” “Can take reasonable private action that won’t really hurt your business or cause people to go up in arms? Check.” “Should be illegal? Uh… Blank?”
The first two check out fine, but when the question of legality pops up then I think we get into murkier waters. Because I think an argument can be made both ways using Objectivist ethics and capitalist politics. And the best way to sail through rough waters is with a ship set firmly floating atop reality and sails made of the right principles.
What’s the legal action to take. I don’t know. That’s why I’m talking about.
I’m making that clear so I don’t get backed into a corner defending something I don’t really believe, or so my position isn’t misunderstood or misrepresented.
Do you think I’m a moron?
Well, I had to ask after you said this;
And, what, exactly would you be doing carrying a firearm?
This seemed to imply to me that you didn’t recognize that a person could conceivable just carry a firearm with doing something else with it, like using it. I carry a firearm virtually every day of my life and I rarely, rarely ever use it.
I’m musing here about whether alcohol increases the chances of someone using something recklessly
Yes, there is a possibility. There is also a chance that if a person drinks enough coffee it may set them on edge enough to do something reckless. I don’t think the point is that there is a possibility, I think the question is "does consuming too much alcohol CAUSE (causality) the reckless use of a firearm or does it CAUSE the violation of someone’s rights?
In the case of DUI on the other hand, the person IS engaging in the reckless action. Whether or not he actually crashes into someone is immaterial in the same sense that if a person points a gun and shots at a person and misses. Carrying a firearm while intoxicated does not constitute a reckless action in itself. And it is entirely possible that an intoxicated person could legitimately and properly defend themselves with such weapon, a valid reason (IMO) for carrying a firearm.
Do you think I’m a moron?!
…Im going to let that one pass…
But I will say that I think I largely agree with you, here, mammon. If Plaxico is guilty of anything, it is recklessness. Drunk or not, a person who is so careless in his handling of a weapon that it accidentally discharges in a crowded area should probably lose the right to carry a weapon. As to whether it should be legal for drunks to carry firearms, it seems to me that drunkenness is a form of irrationality, or at least causes one to behave irrationally. That is not a condition a person with access to a firearm should be in.
As to whether it should be legal for drunks to carry firearms, it seems to me that drunkenness is a form of irrationality, or at least causes one to behave irrationally. That is not a condition a person with access to a firearm should be in.
I’m certainly not campaigning for “let’s go get liquored up with our guns”, but I’ve dealt with many intoxicated people over the last 23 years. Relatively few of them lost sight of the idea that shooting people is STILL bad even though I’m drunk.
Drunk or not, a person who is so careless in his handling of a weapon that it accidentally discharges in a crowded area should probably lose the right to carry a weapon.
I don’t have so much of a problem with that as it has then been demonstrated on an individual level with due process that the person has been dangerous to others.
Whoah.
Because this individual has been demonstrated (in the past, I presume, since you refer to due process, which has yet to play out here) to be dangerous to others you would be willing to ban anyone who is careless in handling a weapon. from carrying a weapon?
There is a good argument to be made for that, but I don’t think the fact that one individual who does so has been shown in the past to be a hazard, is it.
…Im going to let that one pass…
But I will say that I think I largely agree with you, here, mammon. If Plaxico is guilty of anything, it is recklessness. Drunk or not, a person who is so careless in his handling of a weapon that it accidentally discharges in a crowded area should probably lose the right to carry a weapon. As to whether it should be legal for drunks to carry firearms, it seems to me that drunkenness is a form of irrationality, or at least causes one to behave irrationally. That is not a condition a person with access to a firearm should be in.
So you want to ban alcohol altogether. Or firearms. Which one is it?
By the way, I know plenty of gun-owners who get drunk frequently. Strangely, in spite of your theory, I have never seen them pick up their guns while they were drunk. In fact they tend to make it a point to never do that, and are able to stick to that principle even when they are unable to keep their balance. I can tell you that I feel perfectly comfortable hanging out at their homes, knowing that they are drunk and have access to loaded guns, and I am secure in the knowledge that they would never touch those weapons while drunk, unless they are in immediate danger.
In fact I’ll go further, and say that I haven’t witnessed any of my friends do anything irrational or destructive drunk, that they normally wouldn’t approve of. They may get a lot braver as the evening progresses, but somehow they manage to keep control no matter how much they drink. (I’ll grant you, I don’t hang out with any psychopaths)
I’d say that proves that you are wrong about drunkenness causing rational people to become irrational. I would however love to hear what, in your opinion, are the specific processes that alcohol puts in motion, which cause you to stop being able to make basic rational choices, such as whether to play with your weapons or not. It is my understanding that alcohol generally puts you into a sami coma long before it causes you to lose that ability.
Whoah.
Because this individual has been demonstrated (in the past, I presume, since you refer to due process, which has yet to play out here) to be dangerous to others you would be willing to ban anyone who is careless in handling a weapon. from carrying a weapon?
Not just anyone based on one person’s actions, that person based on his/her actions. In other words, only specific individuals who demonstrate reckless or life-threatening behavior with a firearm as proven in a court of law (because they were charged with a crime). Note that such a ban could be part of a sentencing for that individual and would or could be limited in duration.
What would be wrong with this measure as a means for holding someone responsible for their actions?
Okay, with that clarification (it sounded a bit different the first time around) you can make a reasonable case. In essence, if someone is *convicted* of reckless or threatening behavior with a firearm, they (and only they) should lose their right to carry.
I don’t know if I would want something like this to become a *permanent* restriction on the individual. To some extent I am sympathetic with the idea that once the jail sentence is over and the fine is paid, the punishment is *over*. But that’s a very different topic.
Okay, with that clarification (it sounded a bit different the first time around) you can make a reasonable case. In essence, if someone is *convicted* of reckless or threatening behavior with a firearm, they (and only they) should lose their right to carry.
Make no mistake, I’m not at all in favor of any kind of general firearms ban, at least those kind that can reasonably be used for personal defense (which also opens up another whole can of worms). I was specifically addressing consequences for the actions of individuals on an individual basis.
…
In the case of DUI on the other hand, the person IS engaging in the reckless action. Whether or not he actually crashes into someone is immaterial in the same sense that if a person points a gun and shots at a person and misses. Carrying a firearm while intoxicated does not constitute a reckless action in itself. And it is entirely possible that an intoxicated person could legitimately and properly defend themselves with such weapon, a valid reason (IMO) for carrying a firearm.
I do not agree with your DUI analogy. It seems that you are rationalizing police action on the chance that something bad might happen. If that is appropriate, then where does it stop, since all kinds of bad things might happen in all kinds of seemingly innocuous situations.