Oh what, now you want to take away my right to open-carry a low-yield tactical nuclear warhead into a Walmart or public library?
Or their own caste?
Since illegal guns are largely acquired through straw purchases they are nigh impossible to detect until after a major crime. All thanks to NRA lobbying efforts coming to fruition.
If we’re going to look at medieval European history, I’m going to say that the thing which most makes sense to me is the Three Estates: Nobility, Commoners, and Clergy, each with their own laws. Especially the Clergy.
If you abstract away religion (only, it’s kind of still there), I think this maps on to modern American society as the three estates being The Worthy, The Masses, and Enforcement.
Naturally, these three aren’t internally uniform, any more than any Estate was in the middle ages. You can have a wealthy member of the Masses, you can have a destitute member of the Worthy, just as a poor baronet was in the same class as the King, the Mayor of London and a starving serf were both commoners. But still.
I probably don’t need to go into the Worthy and Masses: you can figure out who is who by yourself. But Enforcement is more like the Clergy used to be. It’s a step to the right and outside the Worthy/Masses distinction. Whether you’re in the military or police forces or private security or whatever level of Lawndorder, you operate under different rules, and whether you came from the Worthy class or the Masses no longer has much impact. Laws that apply to the other two Estates don’t apply to you. You have privileges that the other two Estates can’t claim. Only, instead of needing to kind of speak Latin, all you need is a badge or a uniform.
And it’s not a question of religion, except that the unquestionable worship of Authority and Law and Force is practically religious in its fervour, so…
It is pretty amazing when you learn that at the turn of the century “fighting for labor rights” meant you could get into a literal shoot out with your employer who has hired goons armed with machines guns. And depending on the situation, the sheriff may or may not be on your side. The whole “Company Towns” model made little corporate fiefdoms.
If only they knew the power of team building via throwing a pizza party. /s
I suppose that is true. Had it been implemented differently there wouldn’t have been people contesting the law.
You’re right, the law isn’t specifically about cops. All states have very special laws to exclude cops from gun laws.
I am not sure what you mean by the last part. “eligible in their off hours”. Cops are not only eligible to conceal carry off duty, many if not most of departments require them to do so off hours.
Hey I’m not even arguing against gun regulation. Just pointing out, going to shall-issue may have very little impact. Unraveling the causes of high rates of gun violence is very complex. Vermont, of all places, had the most relaxed gun laws in the entire US until pretty recently, and it has never had Chicago-level violence, and places adjacent to it, like Canada, also didn’t suffer from any kind of weapon smuggling from Vermont. Vermont was astonishingly relaxed on gun laws. It was the first, and for a very long time the only, state in the US to allow concealed carry without a permit. In fact, permitless carry was called Vermont Carry for a long time until it started to become a thing in more states. You would expect Vermont to have shootings all the time, but it never had any such problems.
I don’t have any answers about why this is, but I only bring it up to show that there isn’t a straightforward relationship between gun violence and gun laws, the way there is between, say, smoking and lung cancer, or high speed limits and traffic accidents. Gun control supporters would like there to be such a relationship, but there isn’t. NRA supporters would like there to be a clear relationship between more guns and less crime, or more CCW and less crime, but again, there isn’t.
Vermont is one of the least populated states in terms of density. Of course the firearm homicide rate is lower than Chicago or any densely populated area - unless the inhabitants are all long-distance snipers, there just isn’t nearly the interaction with other people.
Vermont’s firearm suicide rate is pretty high, though, because it only takes one to tango and the firearm ownership rate is very high.
There is, in countries which have strict gun control and uniform rules throughout the country.
Yeah, but we both agree they shouldn’t be, right? That’s what I mean: the law is absolutely fine. It’s just that the permitting should actually reflect that only a vanishingly small amount of people need to carry a gun and off-duty cops aren’t a part of that group.
Well, if you consider it an armament of your well regulated militia, I think you’ve every right to carry your nuke with you, as our divinely inspired Constitution clearly states.
It should be noted that one of the difficulties in showing these relationships is the blockage of gun related research by the GOP.
In the US anyway.
Exactly. A lack of data showing the relationship between gun availability and gun violence in the US is not the same thing as there being no relationship. Though making it appear there is no connection, or obscuring it, was was definitely the goal of the bans on gun violence research.
Edited to clarify that last sentence
Yeah, but you know the REAL difference between Vermont and Chicago… /s
It doesn’t have Chicago level concentrations of people either. Yet Vermont has a rather high level of gun deaths as well.
Chicago doesn’t even rate as one of the top 25 most dangerous cities.
Also, projections show the assault weapon ban would have prevented 30 mass shootings, saved 339 lives and prevented 1,139 injuries if it had been extended for another 10 years.
If that was a cancer drug in a clinical study, it would be hailed as a breakthrough.
It’s the maple syrup, isn’t it? /s
Are you shifting the argument from concealed-carry laws to smuggling of guns? Why would a small state like Vermont be an exporter of guns when they can be purchased anywhere in the US?
Regarding Canada, bullshit. Our major cities have been seeing huge increases in gun violence, mostly from handguns, 85% of which come from Happy Bangbang Land.
Funny. The answers have been out there for years. More availability of guns equals more gun deaths and injuries. Stop trying to explain away every step in the wrong direction as no big deal.
Are you sure you didn’t misspell “nation-breaking”?