You might want to see everything that was said on the topic yesterday.
http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=2401226
click on the spd update on recent shootings and it will take right to that segment of the meeting. Look for it in small print to the right of the video screen.
Thanks for the link. I went there and observed the recording of the committee and paid particularly close attention to Chief Diaz.
I now add the following as a post script to my previous open question:
I analyzed the basis of the chief's comments regarding his representations that we need to make a "change in our culture" in how we view the possession and use of firearms. While the chief's comments were lucid and are well designed to appeal to the emotions of his listeners, he failed to substantiate his argument. Or, in the terms of formal logic, his conclusion is not supported by his premises.
As the premise for his argument, the chief cited to the following as examples of how our views on certain things have changed "due to public health perspectives." Before addressing each of them, even a minimalist review of these changes show that they occurred, not because of public health perspectives, but rather because our society endorsed them for purely economic reasons, to wit: society was more often than not forced to bear the
financial brunt of the negative results sought to be minimized by the changes in the laws.
His list and my observations:
1. Our attitudes about DUI's have changed from society tolerating it to zero tolerance. I submit that he misstates society's "former" attitude for the simple reason that DUI has looong been illegal and offenders have looong been prosecuted for it.
2. Our attitudes toward smoking have changed. I agree. They have, and for the better.
3. Our attitudes toward seatbelts have changed. I agree. They have, and for the better.
4. Our attitudes toward bicycle helmets have changed. I agree. They have, and for the better.
5. After Columbine, kids attitudes toward reporting others who may have indicated that others may be subjected to violence. I agree.
In each of these, the financial burden placed upon society as a whole for injuries suffered by others prior to the institution of the laws enacted that targeted protection for them has been mitigated substantially.
But, the chief's arguments are red herrings. And they are such for very simple reasons:
1. No one has a
constitutional right to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
2. No one has a
constitutional right to smoke.
3. No one has a
constitutional right not to wear a seatbelt.
4. No one has a
constitutional right not to wear a bicycle helmet.
5. No one has a
constitutional right to advocate violence to the extent that it creates a clear and present danger to others.
However, we
do have
fundamental constitutional rights to keep and bear arms under both the U.S. and Washington constitutions. And that, Chief, is the profound difference. You, apparently, advocate the dispensing of those rights. And while you have an absolute right to maintain personal convictions to that end, you
do not have the right
in your official capacity as Chief of Police to condemn and attempt to subvert these rights. No, sir. You have a
sworn duty to uphold and defend them. Something, it appears, you have forgotten.
