IMO the problem is "self-defense" and "group-defense" and a solution must satisfy both.

[jody]

SCOTUS says govt is not obligated to protect citizens unless they are in custody.

See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) and read an excellent DU post by X_Digger at http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2036160

I ask in another DU post “Is govt obligated to protect citizens in groups like Sandy Hook’s School?” http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022038386

No one has answered that question yet.

Many people live in places where LEO response to a 911 call is more than 10 minutes away or perhaps hours or longer.

Even LEO recommend citizens in those areas arm themselves against criminals who wish to rob, rape, or commit other violent crimes.

On the other hand, when people group together as in a theater or school, they present an inviting target for anyone; mentally unstable, terrorist, et al; who wish to murder lots of people.

That's something IMO society has a right to defend.

That's the problem as I would define it, not one but two problems.

A solution would enact laws that balance the "right of an individual to defend self" with the "right of society to defend itself".

IMO the first is the older since it predates society and preexists our Constitution. The latter is an outgrowth of society.

Perhaps an imperfect hypothetical would be laws that acknowledge the individual right to self defense of a rancher in remote Wyoming with the social right to defend groups in the District of Colombia.

I purposefully chose two extremes as something like a worst case scenario.

Don't know the answer, really don't, but IMO a solution must satisfy both needs.

[font color = ff0000 size = 3]I considered posting this in GD under Skinner’s temporary amnesty but thought it would attract invective and ad hominem posts and not mature, dispassionate debate.[/font]

[jody]

1. Kick for comments. nt

[ManiacJoe]

2. It is mostly a matter of resource management.

Currently, the task of defending the individual is the responsibility of the individual. The police protect society as a whole by investigating crimes after they occur and arresting the suspects for trial.

The way you have defined "defend society" is really just a variation on "defend the individual". It is mostly a resource problem. There are not enough cops to be able to protect/defend individuals from criminals. The same holds true for small groups of people, not enough cops. Large groups of people do get a number of cops assigned to them. However, the number assigned is usually far too low to effectively do the job should trouble break out.

In places of guaranteed conflict, like a court house, the cops disarm everyone entering the building and have the responsibility of physically defending everyone they have disarmed. In these types of environments the cops are present in sufficient numbers to do the job of defending the individuals and groups in the controlled environment.

The easiest solution to cover both "defend the individual" and "defend society as groups" is to let the individuals carry the tools needed to defend themselves both when they are alone and when they are in groups, should the individuals choose to do so. Those who are unarmed by choice or disqualification get "heard protection" from those present who are armed.

Then it is just a matter of controlling who is trustworthy enough to carry the self-defense tools and who is not. For example, today's standards for concealed carry slightly vary from state to state, but mostly match the following:
- 21 years old
- no felony convictions
- no misdemeanor convictions for domestic abuse
- no mental illness (defined as involuntary commitments)
- some states have tests for knowledge and ability (some states do not)

The second easy option is to increase the number of cops/guards so that they are present in reasonable numbers at these high density locations (schools, malls, theaters, etc). If the guards are not cops, a system will be needed to determine who is allowed to be a guard. However, this option is resource intensive, which is why it is not usually used. This options does not solve the "protect the individual" goal, just the "protect the group" goal.

A third, and most expensive, option is to remove the criminals from society, or at least greatly disarm them.

[jody]

3. Thanks for your comments. nt

[jody]

4. Kick for comments. nt

[jody]

5. Kick for comments. nt

[gejohnston]

6. to some it is self evident

while others will have no idea what to say.

[jody]

7. Many, many thanks! If we Democrats can not have an intelligent, objective debate then how can

Democrats and Republicans every find a solution to prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy?

If we Democrats on DU can't debate that issue without vilifying and cursing the other side, then perhaps someone needs to consider just what is DU's purpose?

To tout the opinions of one group of Democrats or to encourage debate among Democrats about issues that divide and polarize not only society but even we Democrats?

[font color = ff0000 size = 4]We Democrats should join Pogo who lived in a swamp I roamed and love: [/font]

[rrneck]

8. An interesting idea.

What if, instead of thinking in terms of "self defense" and "group defense", we thought in terms of "defense of the group by the individual" and "defense of the individual by the group"?

That way "defense of the individual by the group" embraces the best of liberal ideology. Individuals would get the support they need in terms of education, health care and a functional social safety net. And "defense of the group by the individual" can work the same way. Defending the group is one's civic duty. If we use legislation to foster civic duty we can, for instance, allow people to have guns and wotnot because along with gun ownership, the will have inculcated in them their responsibilities in terms of responsible gun ownership and the rules of engagement.

[jody]

9. rrneck Thanks and an interesting thought deserving more than a quick trite reply.

Let me consider it overnight and tomorrow and hopefully provide a thoughtful reply that it deserves.

Again, many thanks. jody

[RC]

10. The solution is to work toward where "self-defense" and "group-defense" is not needed.

Work on eliminating the threat, is the best option long term option, instead of diddling with the symptoms and blaming the shooter as if they were the sole cause of whatever mass execution. The root problem is lax gun regulation and too many easily obtained weapons.

A lone perpetrator with baseball bats and/or knives won't get very far in his fantasies of mass killings in theaters or schools. A sniper in the woods next to a school, trying to throw knives to pick off the kids? Sure. Easily obtained guns are the problem.

[jody]

11. Understand but aren't there different factors operating in traditional crime versus mass murder?

Anyway the latest government report shows http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

From 1994 to 2007, firearm number increased from 192 million to 294 million.

From 1994 to 2007, Firearms-Related Murder Rate decreased from 6.6 to 3.9.

Suicides and Accidents rates associated with firearms also declined as firearm numbers increase

[gejohnston]

12. I think you have it reversed

if lax gun regulation were the root cause. BTW, there is a difference between the rare nut that takes out a classroom vs everyday violence. Even then, this kind of mass murder could have easily been done with a katakana.
So, how are lax gun laws the root cause of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltona_massacre
In all violent crimes, guns are not used that often.