August 09, 2005
He’s right, you know
Some are wondering how Marc Cohn could have been shot in the head, seeing as Denver has a law prohibiting concealed weapons.
It’s a puzzler, to be sure. My thought is that, possibly, it’s because the guy who shot him is a criminal, but that’s probably wrong. I guess if there wasn’t a concealed weapon law, the outcome would have been different. Clearly, the guy who shot him would have said to himself, ‘I have been entrusted to use my concealed weapon only for the protection of myself, and clearly carjacking doesn’t count. I should just go home.’
Curiously, no one seems to have noticed that Denver also has a ‘No carjacking’ law and a ‘No shooting people in the head’ law as well. I guess it’s time to repeal those, as people clearly aren’t listening.
Michael said (at August 9, 2005 12:10 PM):
Of course, Henry, the only people who ARE disobeying the No Concealed Weapons law are the people who depend on people like you and me OBEYING the law. Well, not you, because you realize that if you had a gun that you would use it at every opportunity to shoot people at random.
And yeah, I know, you cannot possibly see the logic behind that.
If Cohn, for example, had been carrying a gun, he would have used it in self defense and...you know what? Never mind.
Henry said (at August 9, 2005 07:05 PM):
Of course, the wrinkle here is that I'm pretty sure that. 1. Cohn was not from Denver. 2. Most concealed weapons permits, to me knowledge, are not good in states other than where it is issued. 3. There didn't appear for anyone to have time to react, even if they had guns.
Laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons have 2 purposes. The first is to make carrying a concealed weapon essentially a strict liability crime. Anyone found with a hidden gun is assumed to be up to no good. The other purpose is to keep otherwise law abiding people from being tempted to settle differences with weapons, which is a valid concern in a day and age where traffic violations leads to fist fights.
I understand the argument about protecting oneself, and also recognize some validity in that argument (even if I don’t agree personally). However, in this case, it is clear the law had no effect on the outcome.
andy said (at August 9, 2005 07:47 PM):
Of course, the further wrinkle is that where Cohn is from is largely irrelevant since the gunman didn't know he was carjacking a non-resident (if I read correctly, that was the second of three cars he attempted to carjack).
Henry said (at August 10, 2005 07:16 AM):
Of course, that fact just supports my argument.
The fact someone might be armed does not discourage people from committing crimes. It would be wonderful if it did – but criminals don’t think that way. The best argument for concealed weapons is for defense, not deterrence. And, even IF Denver did not have a concealed weapon law, Cohn was not in a position to take advantage of it because he was not a resident.