I agree that there is a distinct possibility in our world today. However; it is
wrong to assume that we can simply go around fearing crime. Fighting crime? OK.
Working to prevent crime? OK. Ensuring that those caught committing crime are
punished? OK. Living on the San Francisco Peninsula about 4 or 5 miles from the
San Andrea's fault I know it is a distinct possibility that I will live through
a significant earth quake. Do I prepare for this? Yes. Do I work to help my
community minimize the likely problems associated with this likely event? Yes.
Do I fear the eventual earthquake? No.
You can apply the same to people who live in areas subject to hurricanes etc.
I don't think that disassociating the term fear with crime is a terrible thing.
I also think the problem is that so often the gun is demonized as an inanimate
object via an associative property which I don't believe exists. Most
criminals violent criminals wear jeans that doesn't mean it is acceptable to
fear jeans nor is there some sort of associative effect in the mind of the
public. This is simply because there are a number (large or small, you decide)
of influential people who are inventing this association.
Now. Even you discard all of the above. Monger, according to Webster, means a
person who attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or
discreditable. So semantically using monger implies that the fears (even if
there is some degree of rational fear) traded in are those which are petty or
discreditable.
________________________________
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu>
To: "firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu" <firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 8:18:04 AM
Subject: RE: Playing the fear card in the 2nd Amend. incorp. debate.
I
think we’d need a more specific definition of “fear-mongering”
for this to work. Much fear is perfectly rational, and a sound basis for
lawmaking. The Revolution was fought partly because of a fear of further
British abuses. The Constitution was created because of various well-founded
fears. The Bill of Rights was enacted because of fear of government
abuse. Likewise, fear of terrorism, drugs, gun crime, and so on is
generally quite reasonable.
Now
perhaps “fear-mongering” means arguing based on unreasonable fears
(in which case the objection isn’t to “playing the fear card”
but to “playing the fear card in a context where the fear is unreasonable”).
But I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable in fearing that
privately owned guns will be misused for criminal purposes – they are,
hundreds of thousands times a year.
The
sound objection to gun bans, I think, is that while gun crime is properly
feared, trying to ban guns would do more harm than good. But I don’t
think that talk of “fear-mongering” adequately captures the
argument.
Eugene
From:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:firearmsregprof-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Raymond
Kessler
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:18 AM
To: firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu; fo...@sulross.edu
Subject: Playing the fear card in the 2nd Amend. incorp. debate.
IMHO & FWIW: One of the greatest threats to civil
liberties comes from fear-mongering. Whether the fear comes from the left
or right (e.g., of terrorism, fear of drugs, fear of guns, etc.), it is a
threat. The fear campaign against incorporating the 2nd amend has
started. (see link, there are numerous others) Look for
amicus briefs for McD from Dave Kopel and Don Kates and others that deal with
the gun-crime issue. The bloodbaths predicted after many states licensed
concealed carry never occurred. Society has not collapsed since June,
2008. Nobody ever said the Second Amendment is absolute. In Heller the
Court strongly hinted that many traditional gun control laws would be
valid. Further, there is no convincing evidence that ordinary
law-abiding citizens having common weapons is a cause of crime. Chicken
Little is alive and well, prospering in this propaganda campaign.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20091111/OPINION01/911110323/1002/OPINION/Time+to+re-examine+rights+of+Second+Amendment
Ray Kessler
Prof. of Criminal Justice
Sul Ross State Univ.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Firearmsregprof@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
