AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (21 comments)

  1. Jon Murphy

    Welcome to the party, Mexico!

  2. Jon Murphy

    It sucks that cop resources were wasted on what was obviously a profiling case, but the driver made a crucial mistake: consenting to a search of the car.

    Rule Number 1: Never, ever, EVER consent to a search.

    1. They will arrest you on suspicion of something then. And when they tow your car to the lot, the will need to inventory it to make sure nothing gets stolen in the lot. Hey are these, bars of cocaine.

      Can’t win, with that one.

      1. Jon Murphy

        Possibly. But if it goes to court, the burden of proof would fall on the cops. By consenting, the burden of proof would fall upon me.

  3. Benjamin Cole

    #7 People are jailed for one month awaiting lab results?
    If you give government a power–the power to tax, regulate crops, have a standing military, intrude in your sex life or drug life–that power will be expanded and abused.

    1. It was somehow someone else’s fault she didn’t live in a more secure home?

      1. morganovich

        hit-

        you have got to be kidding me.

        you are trying to blame her because a jumped up wanna be rambo fired his weapon from outside the house and hit her?

        it’s her fault for not having a kevlar house?

        few exterior home walls would stop a bullet.

        if you have typical wood, stucco, and drywall, a +p 9mm or .40 police handgun round is going right through.

        contrary to what most seem to believe (and see in movies) there is very little in your house that would stop a bullet, even from a handgun, and nothing that will stop a high powered rifle unless you have some serious stonework (brick sure won’t).

        talk about blaming the victim.

        1. contrary to what most seem to believe (and see in movies) there is very little in your house that would stop a bullet, even from a handgun, and nothing that will stop a high powered rifle unless you have some serious stonework (brick sure won’t).

          Yeah, it’s always funny to see people emerging unharmed from behind an overturned table after being sprayed with automatic weapon fire.

          juandos’s cite also contains this disturbing quote from Ross County Sheriff George Lavender, referring to the officer who fired the shot:

          “I really believe that until today when we advised him what happened, I really believe he had no idea he was the one that fired the shot,”

          Either many shots were fired from outside the house, which is disturbing enough, or the officer didn’t know he fired his weapon, which is mind blowing.

          What we DO know, without being told, is that the weapon didn’t fire accidentally.

          1. Pardon the extra italics.

      2. It was somehow someone else’s fault she didn’t live in a more secure home?

        Are you really saying that a person shouldn’t complain about being shot in the head if they knowingly associate with suspected criminals? It’s just the risk a person takes in such circumstances?

  4. >> It was somehow someone else’s fault she didn’t live in a more secure home?
    > you are trying to blame her

    It takes two to tango — as Ronald Coase pointed out — except in the case of one’s own home, which is one’s own tango.

    Please explain how the fragility of her home was someone else’s fault.

    > few exterior home walls would stop a bullet.

    Concrete easily stops bullets, and it doesn’t cost very much. PVA-ECC works even better. It was a handgun round. Handguns are weak. However, even if it had been a .223 or .308 round, it wouldn’t have been able to penetrate a 2-inch-thick thin-shell concrete structure.

    > and nothing that will stop a high powered rifle

    The Bullet Test:

    “To test the bullet-resisting strength of a Monolithic Dome, Gary Clark, our VP of Sales, fired at our Monolithic Dome storage buildings. He fired from very close range, nearly perpendicular to the dome. He shot one round into each of two of our 32-foot diameter shops.

    The first bullet entered through the Airform leaving a hole about the size of a pencil and disintegrated inside that hole. We dug out the bullet later, and it was totally flat. That bullet, fired from a 30-06, was a 180 grain hunting bullet with a full copper jacket – the same type of ammunition used in World War II in the Garand Rifle and far more powerful than today’s M-16 bullet.

    When hit with a round from the 30-06 rifle, the second dome’s wall lost a small piece of concrete about the size of a fist, but the bullet did not penetrate.

    This experiment showed that the Monolithic Dome can withstand a substantial amount of rifle fire. Certainly, it can withstand any pistol fire or anything smaller than a heavy duty 30-06 at a point blank range and perpendicular.”

    > talk about blaming the victim.

    Complain to Coase. He’s the one with the Nobel Prize.

    1. morganovich

      “Please explain how the fragility of her home was someone else’s fault.”

      this is a foolish and meaningless question.

      few homes can stop a bullet. the issue was not the construction of her home. it’s that someone fired a gun at at.

      are you seriously trying to establish the standard that if i shoot at your house, it’s your fault if you get hit because you did not bulletproof it?

      you then cite an absurd comparison to a deliberately hardened dome.

      home construction is not to those standards.

      and what about windows?

      you clearly know very little about guns or construction.

      a .40 cal pistol goes through 1/4 to 1/2 inch plywood (common home construction0 like tissue paper.

      your coasian analysis is completely bogus grandstanding.

      such an analysis would NEVER arrive at the notion that in a country not at war that all houses should be made bulletproof so that people could fire guns at them if they wanted to and do no harm.

      far easier and less costly to just stop people from shooting guns.

      got any windows in your house?

      are they bulletproof?

      i have a .338 lapua chambered barrett that will fire right through multiple cinder-blocks placed end to end.

      you really think if i were incompetent or criminal enough to fire it at someone’s home, it would be their fault for not having a stronger home?

      your whole premise is absurd and you are dramatically misrepresenting coase.

      1. morganovich

        let’s take another simple example to reveal how absurd your argument is:

        you are in the shower.

        someone bursts into the bathroom and shoots you in the chest.

        if you had showered in a bulletproof vest with ceramic plates, it would have just left a bruise.

        instead, you are badly wounded.

        the guy claims it was your fault for not having better shower wear.

        you gonna buy that?

        what if he then appeals to coase?

        how would that logic even go?

        that it makes more sense for a society to hold those in the shower to high standards of bullet resistance or that it makes more sense to ban people from shooting others in the shower?

        1. @Morganovich

          > the guy claims it was your fault for not having better shower wear.

          He would be right. Two to tango. He’s at fault. I’m at fault. I would also be at fault for not having a more secure home that could better keep assassins out and/or for not having a better security system that could alert me to intruders.

          I would have taken that gamble, not someone else. People take gambles, and sometimes they lose.

          > you gonna buy that?

          Yes. Two to tango.

          > what if he then appeals to coase?

          That wouldn’t be a very smart appeal, because Coase would say he’s also responsible. Two to tango.

          Also, Coase would be powerless to stop a judge from pointing out what judges normally pint out in cases like these, which is that normal prudent people — and even the highly paranoid — don’t shower with bullet-proof vests on. This puts more of the responsibility on the shooter, though not all of it. The reason is that if I has been wearing a bullet-proof vest, his charges wouldn’t be as serious.

          Now, if it’s really entirely his fault, you have to explain how that could be — that what he’s being charged with he wouldn’t be charged with if I, rather than he, had done a certain thing.

          1. morganovich

            “He would be right. Two to tango. He’s at fault. I’m at fault. I would also be at fault for not having a more secure home that could better keep assassins out and/or for not having a better security system that could alert me to intruders.”

            you are so full of it hit.

            you seriously see no difference between him shooting you and your failure to shower in kevlar both in terms of social cost, valid rights structures, and how to apportions costs from activities?

            i had been trying to figure out if you were just a dishonest wind up artist.

            thank you for establishing the facts of the matter.

            you are either the most demented moral relativist i have come across, or you are just being a deliberate annoyance.

            in either case, i wash my hands of you.

            happy trolling.

          2. Hit

            This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments you have *ever* made, and that’s really saying something.

            Nothing you have written has any bearing in this issue. That women has (had) natural rights to her life, liberty, and property. Her reasonable expectation, as a peaceful person, would be that those rights would be respected. The aggressor – the person who violated those rights, is at fault. Period. There’s nothing more to it, unless the officer who fired the shot can claim self defense, and I’ve not heard that mentioned.

            Please don’t go on with your mis-interpretation of Coase, and dancing. You are embarrassing yourself here.

      2. @Morganovich

        > are you seriously trying to establish the standard that if i shoot at your house, it’s your fault if you get hit because you did not bulletproof it?

        As Ronald Coase pointed out, it would be two parties’ faults.

        > comparison to a deliberately hardened dome

        They’re all like that. Those two domes weren’t special. If you want something more common, you can build an ICF home. Same result: bulletproof.

        > home construction is not to those standards.

        It depends on one’s personal standards. Why do you present yourself as an individualist, and then out yourself as a collectivist? Do you really think we should all bow down to government standards?

        > what about windows?

        The officer didn’t fire through a window. Most of the envelope in that structure, and in typical houses, isn’t glazing. Even if you didn’t harden the windows, you would still be protected most of the time from an accidental discharge, such as the one in this case.

        There are bulletproof windows on the market, and I know people who have put them in their custom secure-homes. Personally, I wouldn’t put a window in my home. What you do to your home is up to you.

        > a .40 cal pistol goes through 1/4 to 1/2 inch plywood

        ICF is common. You don’t have to choose plywood. Is it someone else’s fault if you choose to live in a plywood house?

        > such an analysis would NEVER arrive at the notion that in a country not at war that all houses should be made bulletproof

        Straw man. Coase would say she took the gamble and lost. No one made her do it. She decided to take that gamble all on her own.

        > far easier and less costly to just stop people from shooting guns.

        Oh. You’re a gun grabber? You think the UK’s a good model?

        > got any windows in your house?

        If I did, as I told you many times, it would be partly my responsibility if I were to be accidentally shot in my home, as this person was in her home.

        > i have a .338 lapua chambered barrett that will fire right through multiple cinder-blocks placed end to end.

        Try some PVA-ECC. It’s like concrete (in that it’s made of inexpensive materials such as sand and Portland cement), but better. Dr. Victor Li of the University of Michigan has tried penetrating PVA-ECC with far more than .338 lapua without success. His papers are no longer available for free on the web, but if you ask him for his military penetration studies he might send you copies. It can’t hurt to ask.

        > you really think if i were incompetent or criminal enough to fire it at someone’s home, it would be their fault for not having a stronger home?

        Two to tango.

        1. morganovich

          hit-

          you do not understand coase and are hideously bastardizing his claims to try to claim that because it is possible to have a bulletproof house, that if you do not, it’s your fault if you get shot.

          that is not the case at all.

          coase would say that people being shot in their homes is an undesirable outcome.

          he would then look at the costs to make every home bulletproof vs the costs of stopping people from shooting at them and consider the rights structures involved (do you have a right to not be shot at or a right to shoot at whatever you want) and rapidly determine that it is both cost effective and more coincident with basic right to property and person to ban shooting at homes.

          you keep trying to substitute “possible” for “desirable” and either do not understand coase at all or are being utterly dishonest.

          “It depends on one’s personal standards. Why do you present yourself as an individualist, and then out yourself as a collectivist? Do you really think we should all bow down to government standards?”

          seriously, are you an idiot?

          where have i done this? you are the one saying we should have bulletproof homes. i am saying that people have a natural right not to be shot at or have their property attacked.

          the question about windows was to flesh out your view, and you are making it clear that it is absurd.

          you really thing the proper rights structure is that people are free to shoot at you and your home if they like and that you bear the blame if you get hit?

          “ICF is common. You don’t have to choose plywood. Is it someone else’s fault if you choose to live in a plywood house?”

          no, it’s their fault for shooting at your house.

          you keep blaming the victim and ignoring the fact that shooting at them is the problem.

          “Oh. You’re a gun grabber? You think the UK’s a good model?”

          pure grandstanding and straw man. i own guns. i support the rights of others to own guns.

          but i also support the acceptance of responsibility when they are misused. my right to own a gun does not give me the right to shoot it at you.

          seriously, no one is this stupid. what’s your game here?

          “Try some PVA-ECC. It’s like concrete (in that it’s made of inexpensive materials such as sand and Portland cement), but better. Dr. Victor Li of the University of Michigan has tried penetrating PVA-ECC with far more than .338 lapua without success. His papers are no longer available for free on the web, but if you ask him for his military penetration studies he might send you copies. It can’t hurt to ask.”

          irrelevant.

          there is somehting that will stop any bullet.

          but it’s not my job to be sure you cannot shoot me.

          if you shoot at me, you bear the responsibility.

          “Two to tango.”

          again, your grasp of coase is a joke.

          the fact that a problem can be solved in more than one way does not mean both ways are equal.

          you COULD wear a bulletproof vest all the time.

          if someone shoots you on the street, you really going to say it was your fault for not having kevlar?

          what if you do and then get headshot?

          still your fault?

          you seriously think that is a plausible standard for a society?

          no one is this stupid hit.

          seriously, what’s you game here?

          1. @Morganovich

            > you do not understand coase and are hideously bastardizing his claims to try to claim that because it is possible to have a bulletproof house, that if you do not, it’s your fault if you get shot.

            Is it possible for two parties to be at fault, rather than just one?

          2. morganovich

            the fact that it is possible does not mean it is always so.

            if you lie in the road at night in black clothes and i hit you in my car because you were difficult to see, there is shared blame.

            if i am sitting peacefully in my car and you, a guy i have never seen before, walk up and shoot me, yes, that is all your fault.

            you are mistaking coase’s notion that a problem can be solved from either end with idea that doing so is equivalent in terms of cost and rights structures.

            further, we have a well established rights structure in this country about shooting people or their property.

            it is also a structure that meets the criteria for coase optimality.

            you are just chasing your tail and playing rhetorical games with concepts you only half understand.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content