CleggThis

Friday, March 10, 2006

Bang, you're dead.....


New Hampshire State Senate Approves Gun Legislation
CleggThis is all about political debate. The good folks at CleggThis (me) feel that only good can come out of a good debate among the people.
Yesterday the Great State of New Hampshire's state senate passed legislation to adhere new regulations in thier laws on gun ownership, more specifically on the rights to use said guns.
The current law states that while IN YOUR HOME if you feel that you or someone you know is in imminent danger that you are allowed to use a firearm to defend or protect yourself. This regulation is pretty much true for the entire country, and has been for quite some time now. What New Hamsphire has done is extended that right to be true not only in your own home, but in the general public as well. The old regulation said that if you were outside your home, you could not use a firearm, but instead were supposed to retreat from the situation.
So I express to you, my beloved reading public, what are your thoughts on this issue? I think this is one for great debate, since there are so many factors on both sides here, and so many questions to ponder.
What is the difference between being threatened in your home and that of in the general public?
Isn't this what the police are for?
If you are a responsible firearm owner, why can you only defend in your home?
Does this open up opportunity for an excuse for firing a deadly weapon out on the streets?
I open up CleggThis as a forum for debate on this issue.
To start off, I extend to you my opinion. It is the opinion of CleggThis that there is no clear cut outcome here. I agree that a responsible, registered firearm owner who has had proper training should be able to defend his/her home, family and property from imminent danger. This does not allow use of deadly force for the punks egging your house or stealing your car. While crimes those are, there are punishments for these infractions, and they DO NOT include death. If someone is stealing your car and is weilding a gun, then it is the decision of a RESPONSIBLE firearm owner what the situation calls for.
As far as extending this to the general public, CleggThis feels that only those citizens who have been properly trained to make decisions of using deadly force should be given the right to. You can easily spot these citizens, they drive cars with sirens on them and wear blue uniforms. However, if it can be proved beyond the shawdow of a doubt that if a situation arises were retreat is NOT AN OPTION, CleggThis feels that RESPONSIBLE firearm owners could be given the opportunity to defend said situation in a court of law.
You can check out current New Hampshire bylaws on firearems here.

posted by CleggoMyEggo at 10:19 AM

15 Comments:

  • I think that there are pros and cons on this issue. I think that the Cons far outway the pros. But just to let you all know this is not the first law of its kind. Florida passed a similar law last year. Other types of this law is being considered in 20 some other states. If we aren't carefull Bush and his buddies will have his way and then you know whats next. People like Dick "The Devil" Cheaney will be shooting everything that moves because he had a little too much to drink and feels threatened by people who move to quickly.
    People need to wake up our country is fucked and this isn't the first example of laws and policies being pushed by the right and in fact the left too that just to make god damn sense. All I can say is strap in because we are in for a bumpy ride.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 10, 2006 11:01 AM  

  • Interesting. I don't feel that this issue really extends to the national level and the agenda of the right (or the left.) This is a state issue as it pertains to New Hampshire. It is also worth noting that New Hampshire was, for the second year in a row, voted the best place to live in America. One the heaviest weighed issues in determining this is crime rate, and New Hampshire has some of the lowest crime rates in the country. So its hard to comprehend that New Hampshire is basing this decision on its fear of its citizens. You have to figure that of all states, New Hampshire is probably the best region to extend these type of rights to its law obiding citizens. But also begs the question, if New Hampshire is so safe, why even consider this type of legislation.

    By Blogger CleggoMyEggo, at March 10, 2006 11:12 AM  

  • my problem with this debate is... who gets to decide who is a responsible gun owner?

    is DAN MARINO a responsible gun owner? when he was in the superbowl he missed his targets almost 50 percent of the time and was intercepted twice. and that's after the third most attempts in superbowl history. imagine that guy with a gun, spraying bullets with a devil-may-care attitude, missing most of the time and hitting people he didn't aim at.

    i'm sorry, new hampshire, did you think about this? you should... that is if it isn't too late.

    EVIL JOHN OUT!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 10, 2006 11:51 AM  

  • I think this is a bad idea. First off, as Cleggo said, we have police to protect citizens in public. If police are not around there are usually other citizens in public places, detering incidents that require drastic self defense like gunfire. If other citizens are not watching, then proving whether a shooting resulted from self-defense or from some asshole cowboy antic would be extremely difficult.

    Bottom line is I think much more violence would result from this than would be prevented. If NH is so safe already, then what the hell is the point of arming the public...f'n stupid!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 10, 2006 11:58 AM  

  • I do like to point that if the normal state of society is already safe, then why the need to arm citizens to keep order when order is already in affect. It comes back to the notion of self-fullfulling prophecies. If you believe the world is unsafe and provide yourself means to protect against an unsafe world, then your view of reality is always going to be unsafe. I remember reading a study of people who never watched the news and ones who watched the news every night. Those who never watched felt the world was primarily a safe place and that bad things do happen, but they would have happened no matter how you lived your life. Those who watched the news every night felt the world was unsafe and amending thier lifestyle to prtect themselves from the world. Probably in response to the fact the 95% of the top news stories deal with violence and crime. Imagine never watching Channel 5 in Massachusetts and never knowing all the violence and crimes going on. Would you feel more safe?

    Quick side note, my word verification for this comment started with the letters WBZ....maybe Paul Harvey is trying to tell me something.

    By Blogger CleggoMyEggo, at March 10, 2006 1:36 PM  

  • Side note to all. I appreciate the dialogue going on right now. Remember, a wise man does not know all the answers, he instead asks more questions.

    By Blogger CleggoMyEggo, at March 10, 2006 3:13 PM  

  • Hey Cleggar...proper english is...Bang, YOU'RE dead...just needed to throw that in...please don't shoot me...

    Love, your Mom!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 12, 2006 6:48 PM  

  • EVIL JOHN SEZ:

    What's this, CleggThis? From the Concord Monitor:

    "Senate Majority Leader Bob Clegg championed the bill, saying it would deter criminals and end the ambiguity in current law about if and when people need to retreat. And the bill would not be an invitation to Wild West-style shootouts, he said."

    Are you offering full disclosure? Next I'm going to find out your maiden name is Marino? What aren't you telling us?

    EVIL JOHN OUT!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 13, 2006 12:51 PM  

  • Looks like my evil twin Bob Clegg is a proponent of the law in queston. You can read all about the matter in the Concord Monitor. There is an interesting quote about how Florida has this law, but yet the state of Florida hassome of the highest homicide rates in the nation, while New Hampshire has one of the lowest.

    http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=110458BB0CD5B4A0&p_docnum=2

    By Blogger CleggoMyEggo, at March 13, 2006 1:29 PM  

  • Cleggo, please cite your source of the Florida homicide statistic (if it was the link you posted, it's dead). According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, Florida's homicide rate is actually below the national average. Also food for thought is the according to the Florida Dept of Law Enforcement, violent crime in the state trended downward significantly in the last 10 years.

    For the record, from your first response to Anon, I truly believe this IS a national debate. This is one example locally that illustrates what is going on throughout the nation and it does seem to be the left vs the right issue.

    Regardless of the statistics, I believe that there are several core issues in the pro/anti gun debate. (for the record, I am pro-gun and Republican with a little Libertarian thrown in to add flavor.)

    One of the core issues in this debate is the fact that those of us who posses and carry firearms are overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens. This is born out by the incredibly low rate of revocation of Concealed Handgun Licenses in states that issue them. Why are you so afraid of people who have the good common sense and judgement not to break any other laws possesing or carrying firearms? Why are you not afraid of the criminals? They are the one breaking the law.

    One of the most commonly railed on fallacies by the antigun folks is that giving gun owners more rights, whether it be to carry concealed in public or to defend their property with deadly force will result in "bloodbaths" or "wild-west shootouts" or . All reliable (FBI, State) point to the fact that exactly the opposite has happened. Again, I refer to concealed carry license revocations and a trend downward in violent crime in states that have such laws.

    Second core issue - stereotypically, antigunners tend to believe that 'the government knows what is best for you' as evidenced by the misguided notion that the police will be there to protect you. Truth be told, the police of every municipality that I have ever heard of are NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED to come to your aid. There are actually quite a few judical decisions to back this up. And unless there is a cop on every corner and at front door, you are just plain kidding yourself.

    Here's an analogy that I use to describe those who refuse to take responsibilty for their own safety. You are the sheep contentedly munching on grass, oblivious to what is going on around you. The criminals are the wolves who really would like to tear each of you sheep into tiny bite sized pieces. I and those like me are the sheepdogs. We may look a like the sheep, but we have really sharp teeth and are willing to step up and fight to save the lives of the defenseless sheep should the hungry wolf come prowling.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 13, 2006 8:36 PM  

  • regular JOHN says:

    There are no easy answers to this debate. However, I do find it unfortunate that many people take the easy way out and think that if good guys have guns then crime will drop. That idea itself seems too easy.

    I find it interesting that a recent commenter believes the government will have its act together enough to revoke the licenses of people who shouldn’t have guns (which it doesn’t), but not enough for the police to protect you.

    I don’t want to get into a war of citing statistics, but in response to the idea that issuing concealed weapon permits (CCW licenses), the Brady Campaign has this to say:

    “In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns.”

    http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=lott_mglc&menu=pro

    (sorry if Blogger doesn’t make this a real link, but I found this on Google and so can you.)

    Yes, I’m a liberal, but don’t assume that I don’t realize that there are people who are evil. People who want to hurt people. But many of these people are a mirror of their environment. You want less gun violence, present more opportunities to people who find no other way of bettering their lives than by violence.

    Also, I completely disagree with the idea that you should be able to defend your PROPERTY with deadly force. Stolen goods, trespassing and your wallet are all things. Things can be replaced. Let the police, the courts, the American way do their jobs. I can’t think of anything more un-American that believing that the system we’ve fought (yes, I realize with guns) to protect doesn’t work.

    And we’re not supposed to see Wild West imagery… but gun owners are sheep dogs protecting us from the wolves? Maybe it’s more Wild Kingdom then Wild West, but either way, I think we’ve evolved more than that… or at least I hope we have.

    respectfully,
    regular JOHN out.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 14, 2006 11:34 AM  

  • Very interesting debate. Makes me remember a passage from Freakonomics, a new novel by a "rogue" economist named Steven Levitt. The author uses statistics to show that even though New York City certainly became much safer in the 1990's, it wasn't actually due the strict policies of Rudolph Guiliani and his Chief of Police that caused the decline in crime. There was, in fact, a downward trend across the entire country during that decade that the author attributed in large part to - which he backs up with numerical proof - to fewer unwanted babies (who as a group have a high likelihood of becoming criminals) in the general population...which, if you do the math, corresponds with the result of Roe vs. Wade. With all the geniuses out there in this world, I'm not too comfortable with allowing the general public to make snap, on-the-spot decisions as to whether to use deadly force to settle a bar brawl or fight over a fender bender.Very interesting debate. Makes me remember a passage from Freakonomics, a new novel by a "rogue" economist named Steven Levitt. The author uses statistics to show that even though New York City certainly became much safer in the 1990's, it wasn't actually due the strict policies of Rudolph Guiliani and his Chief of Police that caused the decline in crime. There was, in fact, a downward trend across the entire country during that decade that the author attributed in large part to - which he backs up with numerical proof - to fewer unwanted babies (who as a group have a high liklihood of becoming criminals) in the general population...which, if you do the math, corresponds with the result of Roe vs. Wade. Less violent crime and few license revocations isn't strong enough proof of the benefits of armed Joe Sixpacks running around. With all the geniuses out there in this world, I'm just not too comfortable with allowing the general public to make snap, on-the-spot decisions as to whether to use deadly force to settle a bar brawl or a fight over a fender bender gone wrong.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 14, 2006 3:36 PM  

  • CleggThis just wants to thank everyone for contributing to this forum. I have seen some very interesting comments and I would have to say this has been the best topic on CleggThis thus far. I want to encourage everyone to keep discussing this topic further. I also want to thank a good friend of mine for contributing a great insight into gun ownership and his thoughts on this issue. While I commend everyone's insight, it was nice to hear from all sides of this issue. I won't reveal his/her name since it is now posted under anonymous, but they know who they are and I thank them.

    By Blogger CleggoMyEggo, at March 15, 2006 9:49 AM  

  • Thanks for the good words Cleggo, I hope that I can continue to provide insight to the "other side".

    A thought occured to me as I was ruminating on all of the postings on this topic.

    If you boil it ALL down to the essence of the issue, the only thing that us pro-gun folks want is the right to live without "unreasonable" restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. (an ironic mirror image to the abortion issue in a dem / repub sort of way) We would simply like to exercise our constitutionally give right and protect our families and our property with whatever means are necessary as defined by the situation. I am not suggesting that or anyone else wants to blow someone away for setting foot on your property, but the existing laws in most states are fairly stupid and unreasonable. Why is the onus to prove his innocence on the guy who family was roused out of bed by the sound their door being kicked in? Why should I have to retreat in our own home?

    I'd like to ask any of you who are on the "anti" side to post a list of what you consider to be "common sense" gun laws. Nothing too specific to start with. I think this would be an interesting exercise to see how far apart we all really are.

    Regards

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 15, 2006 4:30 PM  

  • Awful.

    By Blogger Greg Martin, at March 20, 2006 2:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home