whywontgodhealamputees.com

Community Zone => Chatter => Topic started by: screwtape on May 14, 2013, 09:27:59 AM

Title: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 14, 2013, 09:27:59 AM
I made a new topic so everyone who is tired of the old thread don't have it pop up in their "new posts"

gunfail 1 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/25/1180948/-The-Week-in-GunFail-News

gunfail 2
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/28/1182357/-Your-next-installment-of-GunFail-News

gunfail 3
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/01/1182767/-GunFAIL-III

gunfail 4
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/08/1183981/-GunFAIL-IV

gunfail 5
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/15/1185604/-GunFAIL-V

gunfail 6
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/22/1187476/-GunFAIL-VI

gunfail 7
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/01/1189175/-GunFAIL-VII

gunfail 8
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/08/1190858/-GunFAIL-VIII

gunfail 9
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/15/1192677/-GunFAIL-IX

gunfail 10
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/22/1194432/-GunFAIL-X

gunfail 11
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/29/1196319/-GunFAIL-XI

gunfail 12
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/05/1198090/-GunFAIL-XII

gunfail 13
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1199518/-GunFAIL-XIII

gunfail 14
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/19/1201367/-GunFAIL-XIV

gunfail 15
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/27/1203495/-GunFAIL-XV

gunfail 16
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/04/1205265/-GunFAIL-XVI

and this week's gunfail link, gunfail 17 - 59 morons who cannot be trusted to be armed with anything more dangerous than a wooden spoon.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/11/1206909/-GunFAIL-XVII


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: mrbiscoop on May 14, 2013, 09:37:13 AM
  Thanks for posting. Never heard of DailyKos before.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 14, 2013, 12:08:16 PM
my faves from this week:

4 year old gets ahold of dad's loaded gun (with a round in the chamber) and brought it to school.  Here is the problem with irresponsible gun owners.  They put everyone else at risk for their stupidity.
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/official-probe-report-of-preschooler-with-gun_2013-05-09.html

couple who stockpiled guns for the inevitable war with the government are found out when they accidentally put a bullet into the neighbor's apartment. I like how waldman calls these kinds of shootings "home invasions".
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2013/05/06/berkeley-couple-arrested-with-unregistered-gun-stash/

man shoots gun at wall to get son's attention.  Kills son's girlfriend on other side of wall.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/crime-law/charges-pending-after-woman-shot-killed-through-wa/nXhwQ/

man spills soda on his gun, shoots himself while cleaning it.
http://gazette.com/colorado-springs-man-hospitalized-after-accidental-shooting/article/1500308

home invasion luckily misses everyone in the apartment.
http://www.kptv.com/story/22177329/bullets-hit-apartment-with-three-children-inside

"Thieves learn what happens when you attempt to rob a retired cop who's packing heat! What happens is, you get a free gun!"
http://wxyz.m0bl.net/w/news-local/story/90814824/

on duty court officer accidentally shoots himself. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/1-injured-accidental-shooting-long-island-federal-courthouse-article-1.1336114

cop tries to shoot "attacking dog", instead shoots a pig.
http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/news/city/17923-chicago-policeman-shot-by-fellow-officer

"He admitted he drank about a gallon of whiskey that evening."
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=475640


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on May 14, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
"An armed society is a polite society"--pro-gun bumper sticker.

Well, dead people are pretty damn polite. Quiet, too.  &) :P
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on May 14, 2013, 07:48:01 PM
Odin, King of the Gods

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 15, 2013, 07:19:22 AM
Odin, King of the Gods

I made a this thread specifically so you would not have it pop up on your "new posts" and you would not feel complelled to participate and I stated that at the top.  Since you either cannot read or are a massochist, my hands are clean in the matter.  You have dialed your own level of pain. 

However, if you ask nicely, I can delete your post.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 15, 2013, 09:38:26 AM
good Op-Ed on the NRA

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/is-the-n-r-a-un-american/?hp

Quote
Is the NRA Un-American?

The more militant members of the N.R.A. and most of its leaders may be un-American.

By “militant” I don’t mean those who wish to protect recreational shooting and hunting; nor do I mean those who, like Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that there is a constitutional right to defend one’s home and family with firearms. These are respectable positions (although I am deeply unpersuaded by the second). I mean those who read the Second Amendment as proclaiming the right of citizens to resist the tyranny of their own government, that is, of the government that issued and ratified the Constitution in the first place.

(continues)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 16, 2013, 11:46:03 AM
Let me explore that for a moment.  What if the SCOTUS were to decide the 2nd amendment really does allow us to take arms against our own government - people we have elected and can vote out - if we feel it is a tyranny? 

First of all, who is "we"?  Do people without guns get a say?  If it is a majority of us, why not just use the constitutional voting process to keep that from happening reverse the tyrrany? 

If it is a minority of us, how is it constitutional for a minority to violently override the will of the majority?  I recently saw a poll that said something like 44% of republicans thought a civil war might be necessary, presumably because of Obama.  Does the minority of a minority group get to override the decision those of us in the majority just because they don't like that decision?  Does that seem in line with the constitution to you?

If so, how does anyone think the vast majority of gun owners would respond to an armed uprising of urban, black and hispanic people on the basis that the government is systematically oppressing them? 

And what are the criteria for deciding whether it is a legitimate tyranny? What is the threshold?  Is it the loss of a whole amendment?  Does making religious organizations pay for health insurance constitute a tyranny? How about making people provide government ID to vote?  Or is it just about guns?  At what point is it okay to start killing police and elected officials?

Last, if we allow that the right to violently rebel is guaranteed by the second amendment, that means [wiki]Timothy McVeigh[/wiki] was innocent and executed wrongly.  His attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City was his constitutionally guaranteed right.  More than that, it was downright patriotic.  That means [wiki]Aryan Nations[/wiki] is a legitimate organization, sanctioned and supported by the constitution and so is the KKK.  It gives license to every crank and fringe hothead to execute the winner of any election the outcome of which the do not like.   

This whole idea makes me ill.  Even if this is what Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton had in mind, it is pure fantasy and suicidal to think it applies today.


edits in blue
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on May 16, 2013, 12:24:13 PM
A heartfelt "Indeed!", screwtape.  The fact of the matter is that if people take up arms against their own government, that means they feel the government no longer represents them.  They are outside the law.  And while they may win in their revolt, that in no way means they were right to do so.  It also doesn't mean they were wrong.  You can't decide something like that based on who won and who lost.

If the Southern states had succeeded in their rebellion against the Union, it would not have made their efforts to preserve slavery right or just.  It simply would have meant that they had succeeded in using force to separate themselves from the rest of the country.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on May 16, 2013, 01:02:04 PM
Let me explore that for a moment.  What if the SCOTUS were to decide the 2nd amendment really does allow us to take arms against our own government - people we have elected and can vote out - if we feel it is a tyranny? 

First of all, who is "we"?  Do people without guns get a say?  If it is a majority of us, why not just use the constitutional voting process to keep that from happening? 

My opinion would be that it isn't a tyranny until the constitutional voting process is null and void. And the fear is that if and when the gov't disarms the populace, the populace won't have much recourse to prevent that from happening, nor correct it after the fact.

Quote
If it is a minority of us, how is it constitutional for a minority to violently override the will of the majority?  I recently saw a poll that said something like 44% of republicans thought a civil war might be necessary, presumably because of Obama.  Does the minority of a minority group get to override the decision those of us in the majority just because they don't like that decision?  Does that seem in line with the constitution to you?

Tough question, but remember; the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The rights of the minority are supposed to have equal weight.

Quote
If so, how does anyone think the vast majority of gun owners would respond to an armed uprising of urban, black and hispanic people on the basis that the government is systematically oppressing them?

I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy in there, but suffice it to say….it depends. Yeah, the majority of gun owners are right wing, and the majority of those could be bigots. But, since it's mere speculation, let's say it's entirely possible that the majority of gun owners would support the effort, given the right motivation. 

Quote
And what are the criteria for deciding whether it is a legitimate tyranny? What is the threshold?  Is it the loss of a whole amendment?  Does making religious organizations pay for health insurance constitute a tyranny? How about making people provide government ID to vote?  Or is it just about guns?  At what point is it okay to start killing police and elected officials?

See above. It's not tyranny until elections no longer matter.

Quote
Last, if we allow that the right to violently rebel is guaranteed by the second amendment, that means [wiki]Timothy McVeigh[/wiki] was innocent and executed wrongly.  His attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City was his constitutionally guaranteed right.  More than that, it was downright patriotic.  That means [wiki]Aryan Nations[/wiki] is a legitimate organization, sanctioned and supported by the constitution and so is the KKK.  It gives license to every crank and fringe hothead to execute the winner of any election the outcome of which the do not like.

As long as they're elected, it doesn't fit the definition of tyrannical.   

Quote
This whole idea makes me ill.  Even if this is what Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton had in mind, it is pure fantasy and suicidal to think it applies today.

In your opinion.

ETA: Aw, jeez  ;)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 16, 2013, 02:11:36 PM
Thank you for responding.  Before I respond to your reply directly, are you saying the second amendment is the right to violently revolt against our government?

My opinion would be that it isn't a tyranny until the constitutional voting process is null and void.

Do GOP efforts to purge voter rolls and inhibit voter turnout count?  Do the poor and non-white people have the go-ahead to murder police and GOP officials who pass these laws?  Or are you saying it only counts once voting is canceled or overridden or otherwise made impotent?

If so, How about when the SCOTUS declared GW Bush the winner?  Would democrats have been within their constitutional rights to purge the SCOTUS, hang the entire Bush campaign and kill anyone who got in the way of that justice?  They were in the majority, afterall.

What if we still have free elections but the choices were all rigged?  Like the Simpsons episode when both candidates were aliens?  Or like in reality when both candidates represent the interests of the rich?  May I shoot a congressman tyrant who votes against closing corporate tax loopholes?  (Please say yes)

Tough question, but remember; the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The rights of the minority are supposed to have equal weight.

I agree with all those statements as stand alone statements, but I don't think they answer my question.  Your reply does not fit the context I presented.  The minority do  have equal weight when voting, in that each person's vote counts the same.  But not in the sense that their lower vote total carries the same weight as a higher vote total. Their guy got fewer votes.  They lost.

And it does not address who gets to decide.  If 44% of republicans decide they cannot tolerate an Obama administration any longer, do they get to usurp the majority, kill a whole bunch of people and call it constitutional?  Is that what Thomas Jefferson intended?

I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy in there,

Maybe.  I'd be interested to know what it is. 

Yeah, the majority of gun owners are right wing, and the majority of those could be bigots. But, since it's mere speculation, let's say it's entirely possible that the majority of gun owners would support the effort, given the right motivation. 

My point was not about bigotry, though I can see how it would appear to be. In my haste I was not thorough enough.  My point was about perspective.  I think the non-whites in this country have some legitimate grievances.  And since the majority of gun fanatics are white, the idea of a minority revolt would not likely sit well, not because of prejudice necessarily, but because they do not have the same problems and so do not see the problems. 

I cannot see how it would be seen as a righteous and constitutional rebellion.  It would be seen as a riot.  Historic precedence is on my side. 

Case in point: Rodney King.  The black community in LA has long had grievances against the LAPD.  But the officials have ignored them.  In a real sense, that is a tyranny.  Government was not working for them.

Supposing they had acted in a more focused way than just burning cars and breaking windows, would they have been within their rights killing a bunch of LAPD officers, a couple of precinct captains, the chief, a few members the city board and possibly the mayor?

How would that have worked out for them?  Secondary question, how would new officials be selected and would they have a different policy?  If the white majority elected more of the same, then what?
 
As long as they're elected, it doesn't fit the definition of tyrannical.   

I think you can still have elections under a tyranny.  Iran has elections, but I think their government is a tyranny. 

George Bush was elected (once).  He is the precipitator of the Patriot Act.  I consider that to be a tyrannical piece of legislation.  He did a lot of other tyrannical shit to. 

I think Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers (I do not count the Benghaziacs among them) is tyrannical.  So is his continuation of other Bush era policies.  Yet he was elected twice.

Many states have been gerrymandered to the point where even though the majority of people voted democratic, more republicans hold office.  I see that as a form of tyranny.

44% of republicans (probably more) think Obama is a tyrant who may need to be deposed for doing what the majority of voters want.

In your opinion.

Sure, but I think I made a pretty solid case as to why.  And if you think it is not fantasy, please make your case.  How does the Second American Civil War shake out?

And if they thought violent rebellion was the solution, why did they bother with a very sophisticated egalitarian system?  They insisted on a nation of laws, not men.  And insurgency is the exact opposite of that.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on May 16, 2013, 03:10:21 PM
Thank you for responding.  Before I respond to your reply directly, are you saying the second amendment is the right to violently revolt against our government?

That would depend on the definition of "our government", methinks. Currently? No. In a future, perhaps not too distant, given the practices of the current and former regimes we've been having of late? Maybe.

My opinion would be that it isn't a tyranny until the constitutional voting process is null and void.

Quote
Do GOP efforts to purge voter rolls and inhibit voter turnout count?  Do the poor and non-white people have the go-ahead to murder police and GOP officials who pass these laws?

Nope, not yet.

Quote
Or are you saying it only counts once voting is canceled or overridden or otherwise made impotent?

Yup.

Quote
If so, How about when the SCOTUS declared GW Bush the winner?  Would democrats have been within their constitutional rights to purge the SCOTUS, hang the entire Bush campaign and kill anyone who got in the way of that justice?  They were in the majority, afterall.

I think I know where you're going with this, as I've seen your argument before. And, it's not without validity. Luckily, cooler heads did prevail, violence was adverted, and the republic continued to function in the way it was designed. For awhile anyway.

Quote
What if we still have free elections but the choices were all rigged?  Like the Simpsons episode when both candidates were aliens?  Or like in reality when both candidates represent the interests of the rich?  May I shoot a congressman tyrant who votes against closing corporate tax loopholes?  (Please say yes)

You may. There will likely be consequences.

Quote
Tough question, but remember; the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The rights of the minority are supposed to have equal weight.

I agree with all those statements as stand alone statements, but I don't think they answer my question.  Your reply does not fit the context I presented.  The minority do  have equal weight when voting, in that each person's vote counts the same.  But not in the sense that their lower vote total carries the same weight as a higher vote total. Their guy got fewer votes.  They lost.

I didn't say anything about the weight of their votes, only their rights. And, possibly, if their rights are being tyrannically trampled, they should revolt. Or move to Texas.

Quote
And it does not address who gets to decide.  If 44% of republicans decide they cannot tolerate an Obama administration any longer, do they get to usurp the majority, kill a whole bunch of people and call it constitutional?  Is that what Thomas Jefferson intended?

Again, I think I know your argument here. You (and most sane people) would much rather them organize and get their vindication through the voting process. I don't disagree.

Quote
My point was not about bigotry, though I can see how it would appear to be. In my haste I was not thorough enough.  My point was about perspective.  I think the non-whites in this country have some legitimate grievances.  And since the majority of gun fanatics are white, the idea of a minority revolt would not likely sit well, not because of prejudice necessarily, but because they do not have the same problems and so do not see the problems. 

Hence the comment about motivations.

Quote
I cannot see how it would be seen as a righteous and constitutional rebellion.  It would be seen as a riot.  Historic precedence is on my side. 

Case in point: Rodney King.  The black community in LA has long had grievances against the LAPD.  But the officials have ignored them.  In a real sense, that is a tyranny.  Government was not working for them.

Supposing they had acted in a more focused way than just burning cars and breaking windows, would they have been within their rights killing a bunch of LAPD officers, a couple of precinct captains, the chief, a few members the city board and possibly the mayor?

How would that have worked out for them?  Secondary question, how would new officials be selected and would they have a different policy?  If the white majority elected more of the same, then what?

How did it work out anyway? More of the same? If so, perhaps they (the oppressed) need to learn how to educate and motivate the majority. Or move to Texas.
 
Quote
As long as they're elected, it doesn't fit the definition of tyrannical.   

I think you can still have elections under a tyranny.  Iran has elections, but I think their government is a tyranny. 

George Bush was elected (once).  He is the precipitator of the Patriot Act.  I consider that to be a tyrannical piece of legislation.  He did a lot of other tyrannical shit to. 

I think Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers (I do not count the Benghaziacs among them) is tyrannical.  So is his continuation of other Bush era policies.  Yet he was elected twice.

Many states have been gerrymandered to the point where even though the majority of people voted democratic, more republicans hold office.  I see that as a form of tyranny.

44% of republicans (probably more) think Obama is a tyrant who may need to be deposed for doing what the majority of voters want.

And perhaps they're correct. But until Obama, or Jeb Bush, or whoever proclaims the Constitution invalid, we can still use the power of the vote, as defined in our laws and constitution, to affect change.

Quote
How does the Second American Civil War shake out?

I don't know, nor do I pretend to know. I do know, however, that if the 44% of your Repubs organized, right now, they could inflict considerable damage, and probably take over Texas.

Quote
And if they thought violent rebellion was the solution, why did they bother with a very sophisticated egalitarian system?  They insisted on a nation of laws, not men.  And insurgency is the exact opposite of that.

Only if the laws are just, and don’t limit the life, liberty, and pursuit of my happiness. Or contradict the entirety or spirit of the Constitution. Yeah, it's probably a tad more complicated than that, but I hope you see my general point. We're not going to have a vote to overthrow the gov't, because if we could, it wouldn't be a tyranny.

I'm well aware that this country is moving dangerously toward a tyrannical form of government, with the Patriot Act, Guantanemo, drone strikes, SuperPACs, et al….and there are plenty of injustices in it. And no, I don't think our current status requires armed revolt, because, alledgedly, we still have the power with the people, in the form of votes and elections. But, that's not to say that it would never be required.

As far as who gets to decide? Hell, I don't exactly know, but my guess it will be whomever gets enough of an organization together, whether tightly knit or fractured, right or wrong, and actually overthrows the gov't.

edit:spelling
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on May 16, 2013, 05:04:43 PM
Without the cooperation of the military, there is no way any group of civilians armed with the 2nd amendment will be able to overthrow the government. No matter how many handguns and automatic weapons and pressure cooker bombs they have stockpiled. They might get away with  burning up a neighborhood and even terrorizing a city.

But the US government would not even blink. With air support, rocket launchers and a few serious missiles, it would look like the short-lived siege in Les Miserables.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on May 17, 2013, 04:33:23 AM
"I like my guns being held by naked women on posters in my room".

;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on May 17, 2013, 06:38:32 AM
Let me explore that for a moment.  What if the SCOTUS were to decide the 2nd amendment really does allow us to take arms against our own government - people we have elected and can vote out - if we feel it is a tyranny?

It's amazing how this is, essentially, about race. What else can it be? Given the substantial cross-over of the subset of Americans who proclaim gun rights against tyranny and the subset of Americans who live in the Confederate South, they fought a war of "Northern aggression" to preserve their constitutional right to slavery. I guess the modern tyranny crowd are saying that whoever wins a war wins the argument. Isn't it interesting that this kind of talk only becomes super-heated when a black man is president? Civil War 2?


First of all, who is "we"?  Do people without guns get a say?  If it is a majority of us, why not just use the constitutional voting process to keep that from happening reverse the tyrrany?

They tyranny crowd doesn't recognize the established legal, judicial and constitutional processes. They fought a war over it. That's how they believe you get to decide changes in our society -- whomever wins the war, wins the argument.


If it is a minority of us, how is it constitutional for a minority to violently override the will of the majority?  I recently saw a poll that said something like 44% of republicans thought a civil war might be necessary, presumably because of Obama.  Does the minority of a minority group get to override the decision those of us in the majority just because they don't like that decision?  Does that seem in line with the constitution to you?

In the Civil War, the minority were the Confederates. The population of the North was about twice that of the South, if I recall correctly. Are homosexuals just a side-show since the words homosexual, gay or lesbian didn't appear within the Constitution and, therefore, something that they won't fight a war over?

However, the right of women to vote wasn't necessarily excluded by the Constitution but an amendment was added to specifically grant that right. And the women of America didn't feel the need to bear arms or bare arms in order to accomplish it. Women are in the majority of the country (though not necessarily at that time).

So, again, since homosexuals and women do not equate to race and/or "black", this is a racial issue, quite plainly.


If so, how does anyone think the vast majority of gun owners would respond to an armed uprising of urban, black and hispanic people on the basis that the government is systematically oppressing them?

No. When people can still otherwise go on about their daily lives without suffering otherwise (lack of shelter, food, work, etc), they will be pissed but not uprise. The Revolutionary War wasn't really about tea.


And what are the criteria for deciding whether it is a legitimate tyranny? What is the threshold?  Is it the loss of a whole amendment?  Does making religious organizations pay for health insurance constitute a tyranny?

It's a good question, but one that will diminish in relevance if an attempt to overthrow doesn't occur. It will diminish because the "white" part of society is becoming progressively and predominantly beige, olive and mocha, not to mention Asian. And they are everywhere, so these old "white" guys are going to be fighting their neighbors to do the death. Neighbors fighting each other is just "mayhem".


How about making people provide government ID to vote? 

"They" do not see the irony or the hypocrisy in their use of laws to create tyranny to fight tyranny. It's part of the conspiratorial process.


Or is it just about guns?

Guns are the only thing in the Constitution specifically mentioned. Gays, hispanics, voting, etc, are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (the original version), so therefore, this is about guns, but only as a way of appealing to the masses. It's really about race.


At what point is it okay to start killing police and elected officials?

They've already started, but it isn't coordinated. Just small skirmishes. No critical mass has yet developed.


Last, if we allow that the right to violently rebel is guaranteed by the second amendment, that means [wiki]Timothy McVeigh[/wiki] was innocent and executed wrongly.  His attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City was his constitutionally guaranteed right.  More than that, it was downright patriotic.

Correct. Americans haven't suffered war on our soil since 1812. We have no idea what war or acts of war actually look and feel like. This is also a problem that lawyers and social movements have -- often the protagonist is hardly the person you want to defend as the poster child for your cause.

(Note: Although on the day of September 11, I instantly thought that the attacks were an act of war. It was only because I assumed a foreign government could have coordinated such an event -- one without personal profit. After learning who was responsible and how it was executed, I realized it was just a criminal action by those who were insane. Essentially, Osama bin Laden was a more masterful planner than Timothy McVeigh.)


That means [wiki]Aryan Nations[/wiki] is a legitimate organization, sanctioned and supported by the constitution and so is the KKK.

And they are, but lack of popularity keeps them out of control. We are the tyranny preventing their leadership, well, at least according to The Experts in Tyranny (aka NRA). But the NRA doesn't want the Aryan Nation to be the poster child for its cause. At least they are smart enough for that, but as they continue down this path, sooner or later someone will bring up the KKK. It's going to happen.

However, when they focus on the word tyranny, which appears nowhere in the Constitution, they do not realize that their own actions are tyrannical. They do not perceive a reason for the legal processes we have in place. First, they came for ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)


It gives license to every crank and fringe hothead to execute the winner of any election the outcome of which the do not like.   

Only in their own eyes, their own psychotic eyes ...

Quote
It is in this spirit that John Wilkes Booth cried “Sic semper tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants”) just after he shot Abraham Lincoln.


This whole idea makes me ill.  Even if this is what Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Hamilton had in mind, it is pure fantasy and suicidal to think it applies today.

What those men had in mind was representation and elected government, not a monarchy. The tyranny wasn't in being governed, it was in governing without representation, without election, without change. They very things those men fought for are exactly the things that the NRA is against.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 17, 2013, 09:31:52 AM
fuck.  I just lost about an hours worth of writing.  I'll respond later.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on May 17, 2013, 02:45:29 PM
To put some context on Second Amendment gun rights, one of the reasons the American Revolution was successful is because of individual landowners who were able to ambush British troops again and again.  And while the militia was not very good, there were some battles that wouldn't have been won without them.  The point was that having armed Americans would go a long way towards preventing a foreign invasion or domestic uprising by those who saw the new republic as a threat.  I don't think they (or at least most of them) ever seriously saw it as giving license to Americans to overthrow the government through force, especially not over a lost election or because they didn't like the policies of a given administration/congress.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on May 17, 2013, 03:25:32 PM
^^^^Exactly.

And the people that say the winner gets to set the agenda conveniently forget that principle as soon as they are out of power. :P

That's why they are still fighting the Civil War, still against the civil rights movement, still can't believe we lost the Vietnam War, and still can't accept that Obama is the president--even after he won a second election. &)

It's the selective memory machine at work.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on May 17, 2013, 04:54:14 PM
Indeed, and that fact is no more clearly demonstrated than by the federal government's response to the [wiki]Whiskey Rebellion[/wiki], two years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights went into law.

Furthermore, [wiki]Shays' Rebellion [/wiki], which happened a year before the Philadelphia Convention, was put down by a militia.  It really puts this whole Second Amendment debate into perspective.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on May 17, 2013, 06:09:11 PM
Indeed, and that fact is no more clearly demonstrated than by the federal government's response to the [wiki]Whiskey Rebellion[/wiki], two years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights went into law.

Furthermore, [wiki]Shays' Rebellion [/wiki], which happened a year before the Philadelphia Convention, was put down by a militia.  It really puts this whole Second Amendment debate into perspective.

My reading of those events is that we should take better care of our military veterans. These people are sometimes traumatized, always trained, usually armed and often pissed off. We never learn, though, do we? :P
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on May 18, 2013, 08:01:11 AM
Indeed, and that fact is no more clearly demonstrated than by the federal government's response to the [wiki]Whiskey Rebellion[/wiki], two years after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights went into law.

Furthermore, [wiki]Shays' Rebellion [/wiki], which happened a year before the Philadelphia Convention, was put down by a militia.  It really puts this whole Second Amendment debate into perspective.

So, you are saying that the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to have guns in order to fight off other citizens who have guns and wish to rebel? Besides the absurd madness of that logic, where does one cross the line from simple rebellion to civil war?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 20, 2013, 01:09:42 PM
gunfail 18
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/17/1208474/-GunFAIL-XVIII

I've not forgotten you, Dante.  I will post a reply when I can. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 28, 2013, 11:25:56 AM
Over due reply to Dante:

That would depend on the definition of "our government", methinks.

I don’t think so.  It is a general principle.  The specifics come into play only after that general principle is established.

Nope, not yet.

Why not?  Legal, deserving citizens were kept from their right to vote.  And as you pointed out, even minority groups are supposed to have equal rights.  They did not receive their equal rights to vote.  Why do you make an exception for them when you explicitly describe their situation as one where you would condone the execution of governmental agents?


Quote
Or are you saying it only counts once voting is canceled or overridden or otherwise made impotent?

Yup.

See above.  In 2012 we had villains in the governors’ mansions in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin (to name just three) who purged voter rolls before the election.  They moved voting machines from precincts that were unlikely to vote for their preferred candidate to make voting more onerous and time consuming. 

This all seems to fit your criteria.  It seems to me that by your interpretation of the 2ndA, citizens of those states had a constitutional right to storm the capitals and remove the tyrants.  If you disagree with my conclusion, please explain why.

Quote
If so, How about when the SCOTUS declared GW Bush the winner?  …

I think I know where you're going with this, as I've seen your argument before. And, it's not without validity. Luckily, cooler heads did prevail, violence was adverted, and the republic continued to function in the way it was designed. For awhile anyway.

That does not answer my question.  This appears to be a situation that exactly fits the criterion you laid out above.  The SCOTUS made void the will of the majority of voters. How does that not justify assaulting DC, purging the SCOTUS, imprisoning the Bush campaign and installing the dully elected administration?  It seems to completely fit your constitutional interpretation. 

I am not trying to be hyperbolic.  I honestly do not understand your position.  You say the requirement is X, and then when I provide examples of X, you disagree but do not really explain why. 

Quote
What if we still have free elections but the choices were all rigged

You may. There will likely be consequences.

Of course there will be consequence.  That is a trivial and does not answer the question. I have proposed what I feel is a realistic view of tyranny and how it would operate.  And you have not really given a response.  If you are not going to participate, then please say so.  I’ve spent a lot of time with these posts and if you are not going to give them serious consideration, I’d rather just drop it. 


I didn't say anything about the weight of their votes, only their rights. And, possibly, if their rights are being tyrannically trampled, they should revolt.

But that is not the context of what we were talking about.  It is answering a question I’ve not asked.  I wanted to know who gets to decide when to revolt.  I pointed out that a minority of a minority right now sorta-kinda want to revolt because they think we are living under a tyranny.  I think they are just sore losers.  You seem to disagree with them.  Yet you seem to think that in principle they should be guaranteed the ability to form an insurrection.  I don’t understand.  Your views do not seem coherent. Please help me out.  Fill in the blanks.


Quote
Case in point: Rodney King…

How did it work out anyway? More of the same? If so, perhaps they (the oppressed) need to learn how to educate and motivate the majority.

I don’t think that really addresses the question.  You seem to be arguing against your own point.  The obvious answer, from a pro-gun perspective I think, is to say they got more of the same because they didn’t murder their elected officials.  Had they done what the constitution guarantees – violently rebel – they would have unshackled their chains.  Instead, they continue under tyranny to this day. 

I say, in a democracy revolt is unacceptable. Sure, there are more than a few politicians and media personalities I would like to set on fire.  I fantasized for 6 years about an uprising that ended in the Bush administration hanging from the Capital Building.  But that cannot happen. It is a rejection of the rules. It is a return to barbarism. And so are all these 2ndA fantasies that the pro-gun crowd has about “watering the Tree of Liberty”.

You seem to hold two opposing positions simultaneously.  It seems obvious that you don’t want a revolt.  At least, you don’t want them to revolt.  Them, being anyone who isn’t you.  So you want that right for yourself, for when you think it is necessary.  But that’s the problem with saying that the constitution ensures the right to revolt in principle.  You don’t get to pick who will or won’t revolt.

So the questions remain.  What are the circumstances that demand a revolt and who gets to decide?  I thought you were clear on that, but you have rejected every scenario that I think meets your criteria.  So I’m confused.

And perhaps they're correct. But until Obama, or Jeb Bush, or whoever proclaims the Constitution invalid, we can still use the power of the vote, as defined in our laws and constitution, to affect change.

Ah.  So, it’s not just about voting.  The constitution must be declared invalid.

The despot must come on the TeeVee, stand on the desk in the Oval Office, tear the Bill of Rights into pieces, while cackling maniacally, and then look into the camera and say “The constitution is OVER!”

After that, all the god-loving, gun-toting patriots will take that as their go-ahead.  They will assemble and march on Washington DC, while singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic.  They will have to shoot a small cadre of private guard loyal to the Tyrant, but most of the police and military will be on their side.  Ted Nugent himself will personally use an M-60 that has been made into an electric guitar to bayonet the Tyrant.  He will then play the national anthem on his gun/axe, with the despot's viscera dangling from the tuning keys. 

Michael Bay should direct that.

Of course, that’s not going to happen.  None of it.  Because it’s all fantasy.  All the savvy tyrants know that you don’t need to declare the BoR dead to destroy it.  They just need to carve out enough exceptions to make it completely useless. 

Rights can be whittled away to nothing but still be technically on the books.  They’re doing it to abortion. They’ve done it to our communications.  They’ve done it to due process and habeas corpus. No tyrant had to declare anything invalid. They just had to tell us it was for security, and we begged for more. Tyranny can thrive by making people think they have rights.  It is so much simpler to conquer that way than to rub their faces in it. 

The pro-gun folks I have heard from have not thought about this in anything approaching a realistic way.  They’ve not considered what tyranny really is.  And I don’t think they really want to.  It’s a convenient and rather self-aggrandizing justification for them keeping their guns, which is all they really want.  They have no intention of actually revolting. Pussies.

Nor have they considered the ramifications of a guaranteed right of revolution. It means anyone can do it.   


I don't know, nor do I pretend to know.

Then you’ve not really thought about this.  It is a principle you believe and cling to, but you have not critically examined that belief.  You should.

they could inflict considerable damage, and probably take over Texas.

? They already have Texas.  I assume when the revolution starts it will be the USA vs Texas and it's buffer states.


but I hope you see my general point.

I don’t.  I really don’t.

We're not going to have a vote to overthrow the gov't, because if we could, it wouldn't be a tyranny.

But we can’t do it now.  The repubs right now think Obama is a secret muslim communist fascist trying to destroy America and they cannot vote him out.  Of course, they cannot do that because they lost the election.  But they don’t care about that detail.  I’ve heard and read people say they lost the election because Obama rigged it.  This is like a religious belief to them.  There is no evidence that would change their minds.

I’m trying to get you to see that your perspective is a dangerous one.  You want a principle that is dangerous specifically because it is so subjective and open to interpretation and you cannot control it. 

As far as who gets to decide? Hell, I don't exactly know, but my guess it will be whomever gets enough of an organization together, whether tightly knit or fractured, right or wrong, and actually overthrows the gov't.

Well, that’s a recipe for total mayhem, isn’t it?  That is a total disregard for the rule of law.  It is anarchy.  That’s where the Second Amendment, as interpreted by many, lands you.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 28, 2013, 11:38:52 AM
gunfail 19
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/24/1210114/-GunFAIL-XIX


Last week 3 people got caught in Salt Lake City trying to take guns onto airplanes.   it's crazy how often that happens.  I wonder how many get through that we never find out about.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on May 28, 2013, 12:28:46 PM
I'll attempt to reply as soon as possible, but it may be as long a timeframe, or longer than your's was, as I'm about to leave for a weeklong vacation, and dont anticipate participating here via computer. Phone maybe.

Anyway, let me ask you one question before I go.

At what point would you, senor screwtape, consider armed, violent revolt to be justifiable, if not suicidal?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 28, 2013, 03:02:40 PM
Take your time.  I'm in no rush.

At what point would you, senor screwtape, consider armed, violent revolt to be justifiable, if not suicidal?

It is a very difficult question.  I have no basic guideline I can think of that would be an air tight, works every time kind of criterion.  In a lot of ways, I think the latest verison of the FISA act, the Patriot Act, the pro-corporate rulings of the SCOTUS and the wholesale purchace of congress by the wealthy are justification.  So, I sort of think we if we were to revolt, it should have already happened.

But I do not see how that revolt could have worked.  Setting aside the probabilities of success, you go to DC, kill some congress people, all the supreme court justices and then...what?  Rewrite the constitution?  Keep the constitution and call for general elections?  How do you do that?  How do you keep the fringe elements from taking over your revolution?  You know, usually the people who start the revolution are not the ones in power at the end of it.  Why should anyone listen to you?  You're not the king or the president.  You've no authority other than your gun. 

And do you also have to oust the state governments?  How do you do that?

It's a mess.  And that is why I think the idea that the second amendment is meant to protect the "revolutionary option" is just fantasy.  It cannot work.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 30, 2013, 09:25:53 AM
crazy russian guy who wanted an armed protest in DC cancels protest.  Demands session and if his demands are not met in a year, promises a violent revolution
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/29/adam-kokesh-calls-off-armed-march-on-dc-in-favo/194259

Quote
"Should one whole year from this July 4th pass while the crimes of this government are allowed to continue, we may have passed the point at which non-violent revolution becomes impossible."

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on May 30, 2013, 10:33:50 AM
You know what using force to overthrow the government (be it ever so justified) will accomplish?  It'll tell everyone that they can use force to overthrow whatever government gets set up in its place.  So I can guarantee that it won't be the peace-minded people who just want the Constitution restored in charge.  It'll be the nutjob Christian radicals who decide to establish the Theocratic States of America, or something like that.

The main reason the American Revolution succeeded[1] is because it wasn't an internal revolution.  It was a revolution against an external authority, the British Empire, which had effectively locked the American colonists out of having any say over their own affairs.
 1. I don't mean why they won the Revolutionary War, I mean why the revolution itself succeeded.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on May 30, 2013, 11:20:22 AM
Theocratic States of America, or something like that.

united corporations of jesus?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on May 30, 2013, 02:49:33 PM
Theocratic States of America, or something like that.

united corporations of jesus?

Canada, here I come, eh.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 01, 2013, 08:52:47 AM
So, a guy brings a gun into Disneyworld...
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/05/its-armed-world-after-all-how-much-of.html

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 01, 2013, 05:57:42 PM
I don't know why in the hell anyone feels the need to possess a firearm at Disneyworld. Are Mickey and Goofy that threatening? Anyone who has taken a trip to Disneyworld knows how hot and humid it can be (even in early April, but try August for shits and giggles -- I've done both) and how much crap you have to bring with you (especially when you have kids). We always got a locker near the entrance. You wear only what you really need while going through the park. Some numbskull thinks he has to take a weapon along?  Really??   ????

And, on top of that he needs hollow-point bullets?  Really? Hollow-point? Did he expect to battle 8yo visitors with powerful weaponry?

The stupidity is astonishing, but once you consider that many of these people think that a sky daddy follows them and guides their lives, it's not such a stretch to see how they think that Osama bin Laden, Inc is going to show up and take down the Magic Kingdom by holding Snow White hostage in the tower and crashing the tram into it as an act of terrorism.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 01, 2013, 06:43:56 PM
I don't know why in the hell anyone feels the need to possess a firearm at Disneyworld.

He may have forgotten he was carrying it -- that's easier to do than you might think.  Not saying that excuses it or anything, only that it's a possible explanation.

Quote
And, on top of that he needs hollow-point bullets?  Really? Hollow-point? Did he expect to battle 8yo visitors with powerful weaponry?

The hollowpoint design is specifically intended for combat, and just about anyone who carries a handgun for self-defense uses hollowpoints.  For various reasons, most other load types, such as full-metal jackets and lead semi-wadcutters, are not a good choice for a self-defense load for handguns.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 02, 2013, 09:18:51 AM
I don't know why in the hell anyone feels the need to possess a firearm at Disneyworld. Are Mickey and Goofy that threatening?


Quote from: Rude Pundit
And he claimed that he had just accidentally left the gun in his back pocket and didn't realize it until he was on the tram from the parking lot, the inconvenience trumping common sense.

He forgot it was there, but realized it on the way.  And rather than go back and leave it in his hotel, or where ever, he just brought it along. 

The whole point here being all the talk about "responsible gun owners" is a little hard to take.  Sure, sure, there are responsible gun owners.  But they are akin to "moderate xians", providing support and cover for the extremists of their genre. 

Jackasses like Angelo Lista are irresponsible and make life more unsafe for the rest of us.  Yet, there is no penalty for them when they screw up.  Did he have a permit to have the gun?  Yes, but so what?  He took it into a theme park for children and then lost it.  And the only consequence was he was asked to leave. 

I liked the comments he linked where the gun nuts' paranoia was on display:
Quote
"My typical response is that while it may be safe in that location, getting to/from the parking lot (not to mention inside the parking lot itself) is not going to be as safe."

fucking crazy
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 02, 2013, 08:09:28 PM
Jackasses like Angelo Lista are irresponsible and make life more unsafe for the rest of us.  Yet, there is no penalty for them when they screw up.  Did he have a permit to have the gun?  Yes, but so what?  He took it into a theme park for children and then lost it.  And the only consequence was he was asked to leave.

Good point, actually. Even though he has a permit to drive a car, if he drove a car onto a football field, for example, he would be cited for violating road rules ("leaving roadway", "operating vehicle in non-permissible area", etc). However, there are no particular "road rules" when someone has a conceal carry permit. We just have to trust that these individuals will be responsible; if they are not, there are no particular "tickets" for violations. These individuals might have their conceal carry permits revoked, but in today's climate of the rights offered by the Second Amendment, this will not happen unless someone is killed and maybe not even then.

We have more rules, regulations, licensing and testing for operating a motor vehicle than we do for possessing a firearm.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 03, 2013, 05:58:13 AM
However, there are no particular "road rules" when someone has a conceal carry permit. We just have to trust that these individuals will be responsible; if they are not, there are no particular "tickets" for violations. These individuals might have their conceal carry permits revoked, but in today's climate of the rights offered by the Second Amendment, this will not happen unless someone is killed and maybe not even then.

This is not true.  Rules vary from state to state, but there are a variety of circumstances that can cause one to lose one's license.  In Florida, for instance, the state we're discussing here, a licensee is required to keep his handgun concealed at all times, and revealing it -- even by doing something as innocuous as allowing your jacket to sweep too far back when you're reaching into your pocket for your keys -- is punishable by prosecution and loss of license. Most other states have similar rules about concealment.

Quote
We have more rules, regulations, licensing and testing for operating a motor vehicle than we do for possessing a firearm.

In most jurisdictions, yes, but not all of them.  New York City comes to mind, for example.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 03, 2013, 07:58:38 AM
gunfail 20
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/01/1211536/-GunFAIL-XX

It was a slow week.  Only 45 incidents.  2 guns found at Charlotte airport.  A lot of minors were involved.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 03, 2013, 06:25:45 PM
This is not true.  Rules vary from state to state, but there are a variety of circumstances that can cause one to lose one's license.  In Florida, for instance, the state we're discussing here, a licensee is required to keep his handgun concealed at all times, and revealing it -- even by doing something as innocuous as allowing your jacket to sweep too far back when you're reaching into your pocket for your keys -- is punishable by prosecution and loss of license. Most other states have similar rules about concealment.

I do understand that a variety of factors can cause one to lose a license to carry a weapon aside from the obvious commission of a felony or issuing a protective order against the holder; in some jurisdictions you have to periodically justify why you possess such a license. However, my point is that there are not any citations issued short of losing a license -- if there are, I am unaware of them. With driving regulations each state has a system in which drivers who accumulate a certain number of violations will either lose their license or be required to attend a remedial driving instruction program. It seems that there are two possible states for a carry permit: issued or revoked.

Now, even in that circumstance I can see some wisdom given that if someone has violated a law or regulation the carry permit is revoked instead of simply receiving a citation. The problem is that am not aware of cases in which someone has had their permit revoked due to revealing their firearm in a small, casual way as you describe. I searched for cases but I cannot find them, which doesn't mean that they don't exist. This makes me curious about two things: (1) do these cases in any significant numbers exist? and (2) why wouldn't the NRA trumpet these examples as actively making sure that people who possesses firearms are being properly monitored?

We have more rules, regulations, licensing and testing for operating a motor vehicle than we do for possessing a firearm.

In most jurisdictions, yes, but not all of them.  New York City comes to mind, for example.

Most people in NYC do not drive cars, much less possess them, so that doesn't seem surprising. Perhaps appropriate, even.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 03, 2013, 07:14:24 PM
It seems that there are two possible states for a carry permit: issued or revoked.

In some jurisdictions, licenses can also be suspended.  In Virginia, for example, if you are arrested and charged with a felony (whether gun related or not), your license to carry a handgun can be suspended.  If you are acquitted, you can get your license back.  Not familiar with other jurisdictions offhand, but I doubt Virginia is the only state that has something like that, or other reasons for suspension.

Quote
The problem is that am not aware of cases in which someone has had their permit revoked due to revealing their firearm in a small, casual way as you describe. I searched for cases but I cannot find them, which doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I'm not aware of any, either.  Which brings us to:

Quote
This makes me curious about two things: (1) do these cases in any significant numbers exist?

There are a few things going on here.  First of all, in many states, information about who has a license to carry a handgun is not public record, and after that New York City newspaper had the brilliant idea of publishing an online interactive map of everyone in the area who had a license to own a firearm, several more states are changing the law to keep such records private as well.  In such states, information about a license revocation would also be confidential.

As it happens, though, Florida is one of the states where such things still are public record[1].  Since 1987, when Florida first became a "shall issue" state, it has issued some two million licenses, out which approximately 0.3% (that is, roughly one out of every three hundred or so, if my math can be relied upon) have ever been revoked.  This includes revocations for all causes; I'm not sure what the breakdown is between minor infractions, major infractions, which ones were gun-related or not, and so on.

Quote
(2) why wouldn't the NRA trumpet these examples as actively making sure that people who possesses firearms are being properly monitored?

The NRA does talk about the fact that people who have carry permits also commit crime at much lower rates than the general population.  That's not quite the same thing, of course, but like any other activist organization, the NRA has an agenda and is not anxious to publicize any incidents that would work against its goals (just as the Brady Campaign, conversely, is loathe to acknowledge any incident in which someone successfully uses a gun to protect himself).  I remember one incident from a few years back in Idaho, I think it was, where some dunce with a license deliberately used his handgun to shoot a toilet in a public restroom.  He lost his license, as you would probably imagine.  I'm sure you can also figure out which side talked about it and which side didn't.

Most people in NYC do not drive cars, much less possess them, so that doesn't seem surprising. Perhaps appropriate, even.

I wouldn't drive if I lived in NYC, either.  I remember the first time I saw the city streets in NYC.  I got scared just standing on the sidewalk.
 1. Which can be annoying if you have a Florida carry license; I speak from experience.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on June 03, 2013, 10:02:04 PM
Information about specifically who has and doesn't have a carry license may not be public, and perhaps shouldn't be...but does that mean that the general statistics about them shouldn't be public record?[1]  Surely such information would be useful in drafting legislation, for example.
 1. In states where it's not a matter of public record, I mean
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 04, 2013, 05:19:31 AM
There are a few things going on here.  First of all, in many states, information about who has a license to carry a handgun is not public record, and after that New York City newspaper had the brilliant idea of publishing an online interactive map of everyone in the area who had a license to own a firearm, several more states are changing the law to keep such records private as well.  In such states, information about a license revocation would also be confidential.

I think this information should be public. Permits issued for a wide variety of things are matters of public record. If you want to have a new electrical circuit installed in your home, you need a permit and it is a matter of public record. We can lookup online to see if our neighbors, for example, have gotten the proper permits for work they are doing. The reality is that hardly anyone goes online to lookup such information, but it is available to all. If I can lookup whether my neighbor has gotten a permit to rewire his house, why not whether he has a permit for a gun?


As it happens, though, Florida is one of the states where such things still are public record[1].  Since 1987, when Florida first became a "shall issue" state, it has issued some two million licenses, out which approximately 0.3% (that is, roughly one out of every three hundred or so, if my math can be relied upon) have ever been revoked.  This includes revocations for all causes; I'm not sure what the breakdown is between minor infractions, major infractions, which ones were gun-related or not, and so on.
 1. Which can be annoying if you have a Florida carry license; I speak from experience.

Why is it annoying? If I applied for such a permit, I would fully expect that information to be a matter of public record. I am shocked that it is not.

If the regulations are such that slight infractions can cause revocations of licenses, doesn't a 0.3% revocation rate seem low?


The NRA does talk about the fact that people who have carry permits also commit crime at much lower rates than the general population.  That's not quite the same thing, of course, but like any other activist organization, the NRA has an agenda and is not anxious to publicize any incidents that would work against its goals.

Actually, publishing such information wouldn't work against its goals, but would rather support them. One of the famous claims of the NRA is that existing laws are sufficient. Well, if so, prove it. The public's opinion of the NRA would be more positive.

However, the recent era agenda of the NRA is to eliminate all gun laws, apparently, at least ones that restrict access to firearms, which will never happen but which it supports by its words if not actions. Ergo, by asking for more than what you will get in order to negotiate for something that you actually want, providing actual data about such things would show that not only does the NRA have an interest in having the carry licenses revoked of poorly trained or inobservant permit possessors, but that they have valid data that it occurs at all.

The problem of the NRA agenda is that it is an ostrich sticking its head in the sand and thinking the rest of the world doesn't exist.


(just as the Brady Campaign, conversely, is loathe to acknowledge any incident in which someone successfully uses a gun to protect himself).  I remember one incident from a few years back in Idaho, I think it was, where some dunce with a license deliberately used his handgun to shoot a toilet in a public restroom.  He lost his license, as you would probably imagine.  I'm sure you can also figure out which side talked about it and which side didn't.

Well, individual cases shouldn't be cited in justifying positions. We should take them all into account. Otherwise, we should follow Wayne LaPierre's position that even 9 year olds should possess firearms: Boy, 9, Fights Home Invaders, Fires Gun: Police (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Boy-Fires-Gun-at-Robbers-Home-Invasion-Suspects-Canarsie-Brooklyn-210026651.html)


Most people in NYC do not drive cars, much less possess them, so that doesn't seem surprising. Perhaps appropriate, even.

I wouldn't drive if I lived in NYC, either.  I remember the first time I saw the city streets in NYC.  I got scared just standing on the sidewalk.

My experience in NYC was quite the opposite -- I didn't encounter any circumstances in which I was almost hit by a passing car. I found being a pedestrian relatively unproblematic. However, as a driver, I found NYC to be a stressful place to operate a car. I witnessed pedestrians doing just whatever the hell they wanted to do wherever the hell they wanted to do it. I cannot tell you how many times pedestrians attempted to cross in front of me whenever I had the right of way.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 04, 2013, 07:21:11 AM
I think this information should be public. Permits issued for a wide variety of things are matters of public record. If you want to have a new electrical circuit installed in your home, you need a permit and it is a matter of public record. We can lookup online to see if our neighbors, for example, have gotten the proper permits for work they are doing. The reality is that hardly anyone goes online to lookup such information, but it is available to all. If I can lookup whether my neighbor has gotten a permit to rewire his house, why not whether he has a permit for a gun?

Because there are no criminals who want to break into your house to steal your electrical wiring.

Quote
Why is it annoying?

Mainly because companies can pull the information and try to sell you something, although there can be other reasons as well.  For example, I once received a mailing from a company wanting to sell me a "Concealed Carry Badge" to attach to my holster.  (In case you're curious or anything, "Concealed Carry Badges" are a very, very bad idea.)

Quote
If I applied for such a permit, I would fully expect that information to be a matter of public record. I am shocked that it is not.

The whole point of carrying the gun concealed is so that no one will know you have it.  Having CCW licenses public record defeats that purpose.

Quote
If the regulations are such that slight infractions can cause revocations of licenses, doesn't a 0.3% revocation rate seem low?

There are basically two possible responses to this:

1)  People with CCW permits are much more law-abiding than the general population.  Further, when you carry a gun, you tend to be aware of it, and you also tend to be aware of the consequences of things like letting your gun be exposed.

2)  As with any other law that gets broken, you can only face consequences for it if you get caught.  If you expose your gun and no one sees it, or no one complains, there is unlikely to be any kind of penalty.

Quote
Actually, publishing such information wouldn't work against its goals, but would rather support them. One of the famous claims of the NRA is that existing laws are sufficient. Well, if so, prove it. The public's opinion of the NRA would be more positive.

They actually talk quite a bit about that.  They also talk about existing laws that don't get enforced, most notably, the almost complete lack of prosecutions for prohibited persons who try to buy a gun on a 4473.

Quote
However, the recent era agenda of the NRA is to eliminate all gun laws, apparently

No -- again, one of the things they're constantly complaining about is criminals who try to buy guns and don't get prosecuted.

Quote
providing actual data about such things would show that not only does the NRA have an interest in having the carry licenses revoked of poorly trained or inobservant permit possessors, but that they have valid data that it occurs at all.

The problem is that the gun debate is so heated that each side thinks that if they give an inch, the other side will jump up and down screaming "Victory!"  It's the same reason that the Brady Campaign goes on at great length about what kind of gun safety training should be given to children, all the while very carefully refraining from mentioning that the largest program in the United States, by far, that provides such training is the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program.  Neither side feels it can concede anything positive about the other.  This is a common problem in many debates, of course, but it's more severe with some issues than with others.

Quote
My experience in NYC was quite the opposite -- I didn't encounter any circumstances in which I was almost hit by a passing car. I found being a pedestrian relatively unproblematic. However, as a driver, I found NYC to be a stressful place to operate a car. I witnessed pedestrians doing just whatever the hell they wanted to do wherever the hell they wanted to do it. I cannot tell you how many times pedestrians attempted to cross in front of me whenever I had the right of way.

Either way, it sounds pretty unpleasant.  I'd like to visit New York City sometime, but I'm not sure whether I'll ever have the nerve, frankly.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 04, 2013, 07:27:37 AM
If the regulations are such that slight infractions can cause revocations of licenses, doesn't a 0.3% revocation rate seem low?

Either Florida gun owners are super responsible or Florida gun laws are extremely lax.

I find the former to be an order of magnitude less likely than the latter.



Also, interesting note, I did not see the Disney event on which the Rude Pundit commented in the Gun Fail list.  So while Gun Fails add up at about 50 incidents per week, we see that it is missing at least a few.  I wonder how many. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 04, 2013, 07:43:57 AM
Either Florida gun owners are super responsible or Florida gun laws are extremely lax.

The former is perhaps a bit difficult to quantify objectively.  The latter is more easily addressed.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0790/0790ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20790

Have fun.   :D
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 04, 2013, 08:20:27 AM
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=26492

Quote
The past decade has seen a large increase in the amount of Justifiable Homicide cases that are presented in the Florida courts by almost triple. There are also the murder cases that were committed using a gun that have increased by almost half.

Florida Gun Laws have changed a lot of the past decade. It is important to know what they are, so below is a list of some of the more recent laws:

It goes on to name some problematic laws that disqualifies Florida as a future home of Screwtape.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 04, 2013, 08:36:10 AM
a little update on israel and switzerland.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Quote
Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.

Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 06, 2013, 07:32:35 AM
http://www.wsfa.com/story/22512996/customers-fire-shots-at-shoplifter-running-from-prattville-belk

Quote
PRATTVILLE, AL (WSFA) - Two private citizens in Prattville took action against a crime they saw committed on Wednesday afternoon - now police are searching for the suspect.

Prattville authorities say two customers followed an alleged shoplifter outside of the Prattville Belk location. When the suspect attempted to flee, police say the private citizens fired shots into the suspect's vehicle.

The shooter has been charged with a misdemeanor and released. 

I just don't get the thinking there.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: DumpsterFire on June 06, 2013, 08:02:10 AM
http://www.wsfa.com/story/22512996/customers-fire-shots-at-shoplifter-running-from-prattville-belk

Quote
PRATTVILLE, AL (WSFA) - Two private citizens in Prattville took action against a crime they saw committed on Wednesday afternoon - now police are searching for the suspect.

Prattville authorities say two customers followed an alleged shoplifter outside of the Prattville Belk location. When the suspect attempted to flee, police say the private citizens fired shots into the suspect's vehicle.

The shooter has been charged with a misdemeanor and released. 

I just don't get the thinking there.
I agree, the "shoot first, ask questions later/wannabe hero" mindset some gun-toters have is frightening. Instead of endangering lives over what couldn't have been more than a few hundred dollars worth of merchandise, wouldn't it have made much more sense to whip out a pencil instead of a pistol and jot down the suspect's license number? If they had, the police would have found the guy within hours, but as it is they're still searching. Brilliant!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 06, 2013, 09:12:46 AM
yes to all that. 

Plus, what absolutely makes me crazy is the yahoo with the gun only got a misdemeanor.  I do not understand why anyone would think he has shown himself to be a responsible gun owner?  Why does he get to keep his guns?  Why this menace even walking freely among us?  It was only luck that he didn't hurt or kill someone over what was at worst some stolen socks.

By getting a misdemeanor it only teaches this idiot that next time he has to make sure to stand in the way of the alleged shoplifter, that way he can consider him to be a physical threat and thus, justified in murdering him.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on June 06, 2013, 04:42:23 PM
If I left a store and two random people started chasing me and shooting at my car, I'd probably flee, too.

Do we even know if the person they shot at was a shoplifter? Or was it just a guy in the same color jacket of the right race and height as someone they thought they saw steal something? And, why the hell would civilians feel entitled to shoot at someone suspected of a minor non-violent property offense anyway?

They should have their guns confiscated, at the very least.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 06, 2013, 11:29:26 PM
I think this information should be public. Permits issued for a wide variety of things are matters of public record. If you want to have a new electrical circuit installed in your home, you need a permit and it is a matter of public record. We can lookup online to see if our neighbors, for example, have gotten the proper permits for work they are doing. The reality is that hardly anyone goes online to lookup such information, but it is available to all. If I can lookup whether my neighbor has gotten a permit to rewire his house, why not whether he has a permit for a gun?

Because there are no criminals who want to break into your house to steal your electrical wiring.

I think the number of criminals who supposedly are enticed to break into a house to steal guns is way overrated. Way overrated. I think it is the fantasy of gun owners that criminals roam neighborhoods looking for houses to case just to find firearms. Out of all the insurance claims for theft that we handle, I can only think of one claim in 20 years in which a firearm was stolen. Jewelry and electronics are the hottest tickets, and they are more often stolen from cars than homes.

And criminals do, in fact, want to steal your electrical wiring. There are far more claims for copper theft than firearms and they are almost equal to jewelry. Pulling electrical wiring out of a wall is too much effort. Stealing copper wiring from construction sites is soooo much easier. So is popping the hood on heat pumps and cutting out the copper tubes. The heat pumps in my building have been struck twice by copper thieves. We also get a lot of claims for theft of catalytic converters.


Quote
Why is it annoying?

Mainly because companies can pull the information and try to sell you something, although there can be other reasons as well.  For example, I once received a mailing from a company wanting to sell me a "Concealed Carry Badge" to attach to my holster.  (In case you're curious or anything, "Concealed Carry Badges" are a very, very bad idea.)

But I have companies trying to sell me things all the time due to information on file with the state. Whether it is a political party or PAC trying to squeeze donations from me for my political affiliation (or lack thereof), companies selling stamps, crimps and registry books for me being a notary public, other insurance companies soliciting me to work for them or trying to sell me leads because my insurance license is public, etc.

Quote
If I applied for such a permit, I would fully expect that information to be a matter of public record. I am shocked that it is not.

The whole point of carrying the gun concealed is so that no one will know you have it.  Having CCW licenses public record defeats that purpose.

Just because you have a conceal carry permit doesn't mean you carry a firearm every moment of the day. Just because someone has a drivers license doesn't mean that they own a car, much less drive one. Just because I am a notary doesn't mean that I have my kit with me all the time or that I will even be willing to notarize your documents.

On the contrary, I think knowing that someone does have a conceal carry permit would provide extra protection. If somebody wants to do you harm, they are less likely to do so if they think they are going to be met with deadly force.


Quote
If the regulations are such that slight infractions can cause revocations of licenses, doesn't a 0.3% revocation rate seem low?

There are basically two possible responses to this:

1)  People with CCW permits are much more law-abiding than the general population.  Further, when you carry a gun, you tend to be aware of it, and you also tend to be aware of the consequences of things like letting your gun be exposed.

2)  As with any other law that gets broken, you can only face consequences for it if you get caught.  If you expose your gun and no one sees it, or no one complains, there is unlikely to be any kind of penalty.

While people who have the permits might, and probably are, more law-abiding, I think that most people with permits likely don't carry their firearms as much as we might think. Some of the people I know with conceal carry permits like to tout their success in obtaining such a permit moreso than actually carring a firearm at all times. More often, the firearm is stored in a desk drawer or underneath a car seat.


Quote
Actually, publishing such information wouldn't work against its goals, but would rather support them. One of the famous claims of the NRA is that existing laws are sufficient. Well, if so, prove it. The public's opinion of the NRA would be more positive.

They actually talk quite a bit about that.  They also talk about existing laws that don't get enforced, most notably, the almost complete lack of prosecutions for prohibited persons who try to buy a gun on a 4473.

Probably a lack of funding for prosecutions that would be costly, but I agree that we should be doing it. If we are going to have a law, we should enforce it. The same people who proclaim the lack of prosecutions are often intersected with the same people who complain about higher taxes or overzealous prosecutions for people who "just made a mistake". Sometimes the issue is a matter of who is doing the complaining and when.

Quote
However, the recent era agenda of the NRA is to eliminate all gun laws, apparently

No -- again, one of the things they're constantly complaining about is criminals who try to buy guns and don't get prosecuted.

I must disagree here. The NRA has shown to be against legislation that the organization previously supported. While there may be nuances to a piece of legislation from 10 years ago compared to today, the NRA makes no attempt to publicize which parts of the legislation have changed to cause them to withdraw support and thereby encourage a change in the legislation itself to make it more acceptable. While the NRA may be relying on the offenders-don't-get-prosecuted defense, it is a smokescreen to avoid explaining why their positions have changed on the major points of previous legislation.


Quote
providing actual data about such things would show that not only does the NRA have an interest in having the carry licenses revoked of poorly trained or inobservant permit possessors, but that they have valid data that it occurs at all.

The problem is that the gun debate is so heated that each side thinks that if they give an inch, the other side will jump up and down screaming "Victory!"  It's the same reason that the Brady Campaign goes on at great length about what kind of gun safety training should be given to children, all the while very carefully refraining from mentioning that the largest program in the United States, by far, that provides such training is the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program.  Neither side feels it can concede anything positive about the other.  This is a common problem in many debates, of course, but it's more severe with some issues than with others.

Although I am not familiar with the NRA program or how many young adults it touches, I don't have any reason to disagree with this. Here is the basic problem, however -- the NRA has won more and more concessions about the when, where and how of use of firearms and those who wish to restrict them have won less and less. The NRA doesn't seem to want to come back from the edge of the cliff. While you can point to certain jurisdictions that have tried to provide limits, most of those limits were re-establishing previous limits that were in place before the limits were removed. Only a few actually provided new limits that exceeding anything they previously had, most notably Washington DC, which had its law undone by SCOTUS. However, do we see the NRA stepping in to say what might restrictions might be better to match what the citizens of DC want or hope to have to help reduce crime? No. Even after children in Connecticut were shot in their schoolrooms, the only thing Wayne LaPierre can say is Teachers should be armed. We need more guns in schools. That is not only tone deaf, it's stupid. The only thing -- the only thing -- LaPierre said that made any sense was that we don't have sufficient resources in place to detect and treat mental health problems. That part was very true. But guess what? At the intersection of Second Amendment Solutions is the Tea Party that doesn't want to pay one thin dime for anything else. His concession was to identify something for which he knew there would be no hope in passing legislation -- additional spending on mental health care.

I think an assault weapons ban, per se, is not a solution. It's a band-aid because most people don't die as the result of the use of assault weapons. But when legislators cannot enact laws for requiring background checks for gun shows because the NRA is opposed to it, the NRA is a major loser in that argument -- public relations, common sense, human decency ...


Quote
My experience in NYC was quite the opposite -- I didn't encounter any circumstances in which I was almost hit by a passing car. I found being a pedestrian relatively unproblematic. However, as a driver, I found NYC to be a stressful place to operate a car. I witnessed pedestrians doing just whatever the hell they wanted to do wherever the hell they wanted to do it. I cannot tell you how many times pedestrians attempted to cross in front of me whenever I had the right of way.

Either way, it sounds pretty unpleasant.  I'd like to visit New York City sometime, but I'm not sure whether I'll ever have the nerve, frankly.

Actually, I was impressed with NYC when I visited. As I told Quesi elsewhere, New Yorkers are far less fearful of all kinds of things. They have distinct neighborhoods and they do, indeed, know their neighbors -- most of them, anyway. Unfortunately, my last visit there was many years ago and it was not a trip for pleasure. I was there for obtaining a body from the morgue, planning a wake/funeral and dealing with the estate of the deceased. At the same time, I had a major head cold and my wife was 8 months pregnant. We drove into the city and parked at a Kinney garage for $35/day (that should indicate how long ago that was). I went through parts of NYC that no tourist ever sees. I was quite shocked at how pleasant many New Yorkers were -- many of whom had no idea why we were in their city.

There was one exception, however. The bitch answering the phone for the Bronx Circuit Court. She wasn't just unhelpful, she was testy, arrogant and rude. I was just asking questions about how to proceed with matters of an estate and she hung up on me. She rattled off information all at once ... like an assault weapon ... and expected me to write and understand at light speed. If I didn't get everything the first time, well fuck me and the mother who bore me. Oh, yeah, and her mother, too. *CLICK* She was even less pleasant on my second call ...

The biggest problem with NYC is exactly that -- it's too damn big. It's sometimes easier to travel between boroughs than to move within a borough. Most of my time was spent in Manhattan, and the only borough I missed was Staten Island. Hailing a taxi in Manhattan is easy until you get to about 132nd Street (if I remember correctly, or is it 123rd Street?) -- that's no man's land, or at least it was back then. You're not likely to go there anyway. The Bronx has some old, wonderful apartment buildings that are in dire need of rehab. I'm sure rent control prevents that.

Do yourself a favor and don't go to Times Square. When I was there it was not as fancy as it is now. It was a urine collection location back then. Now, it appears to be an urban version of Disneyland. If you go, pick something specific to go see -- if you like museums or shows, stay in that general area and walk it -- enjoy it like the neighbors do. If you don't, then you are just going to see tourist sites with other tourists and you won't be enjoying NYC, you will just be in it. There's a big difference.

NYC and DC have a lot of similarities. The problem with DC is that people are not typically rude, but they aren't typically friendly, either.



Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 06, 2013, 11:36:46 PM
This is not Gun Fail as much as Justice Fail (a gun was used):

Jury Acquits Texas Man For Murder Of Escort Who Refused Sex (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/06/2117161/jury-acquits-texas-man-for-murder-of-escort-who-refused-sex/?mobile=nc)

Quote
A Texas jury acquitted a man for the murder of a woman he hired as an escort, after his lawyers claimed he was authorized to use deadly force because she refused sex.

...

This shockingly broad statute authorizes individuals to take not just law enforcement, but punishment, into their own hands and impose death for alleged offenses that would never warrant the death penalty even if the person were convicted in court.

Apparently the jury decided that, by golly, she should have given back that $150 he gave her in the first place.

I'm guessing the "open for business" sign in Texas just got flipped to "CLOSED" for whores, prostitutes and call girls.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 07, 2013, 06:26:54 AM
Did this make the list of Gun Fails?

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/262318/373/Md-Teen-To-Serve-7-Years-For-Shooting-Friend

Man, 18, sentenced in December shooting of friend (http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/crime_and_justice/article_5e579e7d-9de2-59c4-ab8a-30ec804b3364.html)

Quote
Gray told police he became annoyed with the 16-year-old. He grabbed a .32-caliber semi-automatic handgun from his bedroom and went to the front door, according to charging documents.

Gray believed the gun was not loaded and intended only to scare the friend, but instead fired a shot into his upper right chest, according to court records and testimony.
...
Another of Gray's friends, Cory Aaron Nowalk, brought the gun to Gray's home, and disposed of it after the shooting, prosecutors said.


A loaded gun within reach is the only way to defend yourself in a home invasion, but it's also the easy way to let your 17yo take it over to a friend's house for an afternoon of video games and reckless endangerment.




Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 07, 2013, 11:28:52 AM
I'd like to visit New York City sometime, but I'm not sure whether I'll ever have the nerve, frankly.

NY is great.  I find the rep it has to be anachronistic.  Sure, NY was dangerous and dirty back in the 70s.  But it has not been like that in at least 20 years.  Every time I go there I find NYers friendly and helpful, particularly when I need help finding the right subway line. 

You want to talk about dangrous and awful cities, try Baltimore. 

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 07, 2013, 11:51:42 AM
You want to talk about dangrous and awful cities, try Baltimore.

A friend of mine from college was born and raised there.  He said he could never overemphasize what a shithole that place was.  I have to pass thru it several times a year -- get off the train at Penn Station, then get a cab to get to my conventions.  Just what little portion of the city I've seen that way really does look mind-bogglingly disgusting.  In the immortal words of Ted Striker, "It was worse than Detroit."

I do want to see NYC at some point.  Apart from the obvious tourist stuff, I'd also like to see a shoot for one of the "Law and Order" shows.  Or even just some of the filming locations.  No money this year, though... long and expensive trip to Ireland coming up, plus I got a love letter from the IRS a couple of days ago claiming that I owe them $1,800.  I plan to dispute it, since I'm pretty sure they're wrong, but I have to prepare for the worst.   Fortunately, the stock market has been pretty good to me lately, so I can cover it if I absolutely have to.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on June 07, 2013, 04:01:56 PM
This is not Gun Fail as much as Justice Fail (a gun was used):

Jury Acquits Texas Man For Murder Of Escort Who Refused Sex (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/06/2117161/jury-acquits-texas-man-for-murder-of-escort-who-refused-sex/?mobile=nc)

Quote
A Texas jury acquitted a man for the murder of a woman he hired as an escort, after his lawyers claimed he was authorized to use deadly force because she refused sex.

...

This shockingly broad statute authorizes individuals to take not just law enforcement, but punishment, into their own hands and impose death for alleged offenses that would never warrant the death penalty even if the person were convicted in court.

Apparently the jury decided that, by golly, she should have given back that $150 he gave her in the first place.

I'm guessing the "open for business" sign in Texas just got flipped to "CLOSED" for whores, prostitutes and call girls.

Remind me to stay out of Texas. Not only because I could be shot dead if I refused to deliver services previously arranged for. Just on principle. BTW is prostitution legal in god-humpin' Texas these days?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 07, 2013, 08:07:29 PM
You want to talk about dangrous and awful cities, try Baltimore.

Baltimore is not awful, nor quite as dangerous as it is made out to be. It certainly has its problems. Most people are not likely to venture into the areas that are bad anyway, like the west side. I go all over the city for various things. The biggest problems Baltimore has are the large tracts of dilapidated or abandoned housing. Baltimore does have some rather nice sections. The city has gone through a major renaissance that prevented it from becoming what Detroit is today and people are moving into the city every day. Baltimore just needs a lot more of the renaissance.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 07, 2013, 08:19:39 PM
You want to talk about dangrous and awful cities, try Baltimore.

A friend of mine from college was born and raised there.  He said he could never overemphasize what a shithole that place was.  I have to pass thru it several times a year -- get off the train at Penn Station, then get a cab to get to my conventions.  Just what little portion of the city I've seen that way really does look mind-bogglingly disgusting.  In the immortal words of Ted Striker, "It was worse than Detroit."

I have to disagree on it being worse than Detroit. It really isn't. However, kudos to Detroit for actually razing housing that was not being used or had become a hazard. Baltimore rarely does that. Whether it is for historic reasons (doubtful) or stupid pride (more likely), they should just eradicate some of the entire blocks of housing that is not being used and build something more attractive. They have, in fact, done exactly that in a few places, but they need to do a lot more. One large block in/near the west side was transformed into new energy-efficient LEED housing with passive and active solar energy, geothermal heating, strategic lighting, etc. The homes were quite expensive and they were bought up quickly by young professionals. There is demand for this type of activity, but for some reason a system that is choking it. Baltimore City government? That stubborn pride for marble stoops? I dunno.


I do want to see NYC at some point.  Apart from the obvious tourist stuff, I'd also like to see a shoot for one of the "Law and Order" shows.  Or even just some of the filming locations. 

Hell, on too many occasions I got stranded between streets on Baltimore's west side when The Wire was filming (I'm glad it's off the air), not to mention more than a few movies. Some famous filming locations just up the road from you ... VEEP is shot in a nondescript warehouse in Sykesville -- of all places.


No money this year, though... long and expensive trip to Ireland coming up, plus I got a love letter from the IRS a couple of days ago claiming that I owe them $1,800.  I plan to dispute it, since I'm pretty sure they're wrong, but I have to prepare for the worst.   Fortunately, the stock market has been pretty good to me lately, so I can cover it if I absolutely have to.

NYC is an expensive place to stay, but not that much more than DC, really. It does depend on what level of accommodations you want. One of my old co-workers could masterfully find/make great deals on hotel rooms in NY. I have no idea how she did it.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 07, 2013, 08:26:33 PM
Remind me to stay out of Texas. Not only because I could be shot dead if I refused to deliver services previously arranged for. Just on principle. BTW is prostitution legal in god-humpin' Texas these days?

No, prostitution is not legal in Texas, per se, but you wouldn't know that by all the whorehouses ... err ... I mean, strip clubs in Houston. They are only a couple of miles from Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 07, 2013, 11:26:10 PM
Baltimore is not awful, nor quite as dangerous as it is made out to be.

I was there a year ago.  It was a mixed bag.  I couldn't walk 10 yards without a beggar hitting me up for money.  And it was the usual baloney scam: "I am driving a bus for a church group that broke down a couple blocks away.  We need some money to repair the bus..." 

In the inner harbor they have pedestrian bridges from the hotels.  Several homeless people used them to do number 2s in them.

Lexington St market (http://www.lexingtonmarket.com/index1.html) is a wonderful place.  I ate oysters there the size of my palm.  No joke.  and the crab cakes are for-flipping-real.  However, to get there you must run a gauntlet through one of the worst neighborhoods I have ever been through in my life. Cracked out zombies shuffle along the sidewalks.

Check the comments:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/lexington-market-baltimore
first comment:
Quote
The crab cake mecca
Of Baltimore but beware
Crackheads everywhere

This place was awesome.  Great food choices for every taste and an interesting crowd.  You get the ultimate Baltimore experience:  crackheads and crab cakes!
Totally true.

I ate a shit-ton of crabs at Moe's (http://www.mosseafood.com/crabandpasta/).  I also drank a lot of beer.  It brought me as close to the divine as I can imagine.  There is another Moe's around the block, but it's a pretender. Eat not there.

There are good things in Baltimore. There is also danger and shit.   I mean both literally.  Like everything, it is not monolithic.  I would go back for Moe's and to watch the Yankees beat the piss out of the Uh-Os. (I flipping love baseball.)  I have very good things to say about Camden Yards, though do not buy crab cakes at the park.

It seemed to me Baltimore needed more blue collar jobs and less tourist bullshit.  You just cannot support a city that size with tourism at the waterfront.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on June 08, 2013, 05:19:44 AM
This is not Gun Fail as much as Justice Fail (a gun was used):

Jury Acquits Texas Man For Murder Of Escort Who Refused Sex (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/06/2117161/jury-acquits-texas-man-for-murder-of-escort-who-refused-sex/?mobile=nc)

Quote
A Texas jury acquitted a man for the murder of a woman he hired as an escort, after his lawyers claimed he was authorized to use deadly force because she refused sex.

...

This shockingly broad statute authorizes individuals to take not just law enforcement, but punishment, into their own hands and impose death for alleged offenses that would never warrant the death penalty even if the person were convicted in court.

Apparently the jury decided that, by golly, she should have given back that $150 he gave her in the first place.

I'm guessing the "open for business" sign in Texas just got flipped to "CLOSED" for whores, prostitutes and call girls.

WTF?

PENAL CODE TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITYCHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Sec. 9.42 A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property
  - Fine
(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary  - Hmmm. Ok but define reasonable.
B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and - And. And is important here.
3)  he reasonably believes that:(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means  - Can not be protected by other means. A man can't overpower a female without shooting her? Or take her to civil court. Or report a theft to the police.

This case is totally bananas.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on June 08, 2013, 06:06:05 AM
Well MrJason, you have to keep in mind that since he was committing an illegal act by trying to force her into sex in the first place, he had no legal options for recovering that money.  And perhaps he couldn't effectively overpower her by any other means at the time to get it back.  Therefore his situation may well have fit the definition laid out.

Really, really stupid law.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 08, 2013, 01:50:29 PM
I was there a year ago.  It was a mixed bag.  I couldn't walk 10 yards without a beggar hitting me up for money.

You were in the tourist area, primarily the Inner Harbor. The beggars know where the money is. For years there was this guy -- Lenny? -- who would roam the area east of the Inner Harbor (not quite into Little Italy) and flash open his trench coat with watches for people to buy. He seemed more like a street comic than a serious hot-watch salesman. John Waters is right when he says that Baltimore is full of people that just don't really fit in anywhere else. Of course, he may have been referring only to drag queens, big hair and Hons, but that's just his slice of life.

West Lexington, north of the tracks and west of MLK Boulevard is about 2 steps above a shit hole. A few streets through there have been revitalized and are decent. The rest ... oy! Yeah, I don't want my car to break down through there. I travel through that section of the city all too often.


And it was the usual baloney scam: "I am driving a bus for a church group that broke down a couple blocks away.  We need some money to repair the bus..." 

I seem to attract that anywhere I go, but it's never been a church bus. Always out of gas ...


In the inner harbor they have pedestrian bridges from the hotels.  Several homeless people used them to do number 2s in them.

Strange. I haven't used any of those hotel bridges in years and some of them have been closed off to non-guests for some time. Maybe they've been re-opened for the general public? I'm more likely to suspect that somebody has let their dogs take a shit up there, but who knows.

Lexington St market (http://www.lexingtonmarket.com/index1.html) is a wonderful place.  I ate oysters there the size of my palm.  No joke.  and the crab cakes are for-flipping-real.  However, to get there you must run a gauntlet through one of the worst neighborhoods I have ever been through in my life. Cracked out zombies shuffle along the sidewalks.

Check the comments:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/lexington-market-baltimore
first comment:
Quote
The crab cake mecca
Of Baltimore but beware
Crackheads everywhere

This place was awesome.  Great food choices for every taste and an interesting crowd.  You get the ultimate Baltimore experience:  crackheads and crab cakes!
Totally true.

I ate a shit-ton of crabs at Moe's (http://www.mosseafood.com/crabandpasta/).  I also drank a lot of beer.  It brought me as close to the divine as I can imagine.  There is another Moe's around the block, but it's a pretender.
Eat not there.

Baltimore is chock full of great food, especially seafood, as are most places in Maryland. After living here for 25+ years, and going other places (outside of Maryland) to try seafood, I can tell you that the ability to prepare seafood is a specialty here that is equaled nowhere else. Even our tiny shit-shacks on creaky piers in the Bay know how to make good seafood whereas in most other places there are only one or two fine restaurants that know how to make good seafood. Crabs and crabcakes are the specialty. The best time in Maryland is a warm summer day with steamed crabs and good beer (not NattyBo).

There are good things in Baltimore. There is also danger and shit.   I mean both literally.  Like everything, it is not monolithic.  I would go back for Moe's and to watch the Yankees beat the piss out of the Uh-Os. (I flipping love baseball.)  I have very good things to say about Camden Yards, though do not buy crab cakes at the park.

Camden Yards is a very nice place. I wouldn't buy any seafood at a ballpark. I would buy only what they know how to make best: hotdogs and pretzels.


It seemed to me Baltimore needed more blue collar jobs and less tourist bullshit.  You just cannot support a city that size with tourism at the waterfront.

There is a lot more to Baltimore besides the tourist trade. The Port of Baltimore does a lot of business. If you live East of the Mississippi River and you drive a car built in Japan, it came through Baltimore. There are giant lots of freshly baked cars near the ports that most people never see -- nobody really wants to go down there. Tons of other things come through the ports. The steel mill closed, McCormick Spice moved to the suburbs. The Social Security Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS) have been headquartered just outside of Baltimore for 60+ years.

Baltimore is also home to a lot of medical research facilities despite the blue-collar history of the city. Johns Hopkins has 4 campuses and University of Maryland medical, dentistry and law schools are in Baltimore, as well. Government, education and charitable institutions offer lots of employment for the region. Colleges are everywhere. Surrounding BWI are tons of high-tech companies, warehouses and who knows what else.

The city itself is slowly morphing into a place to live, be entertained, get medical care and get educated.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 08, 2013, 01:53:26 PM
4-year-old boy accidentally kills dad in Arizona (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/08/3440202/4-year-old-boy-accidentally-kills.html)

Quote
Police say the boy somehow found a gun in the home's living room and accidentally fired it and a bullet hit his father, who was rushed to a hospital where he died.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/08/3440202/4-year-old-boy-accidentally-kills.html#storylink=cpy
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on June 08, 2013, 07:33:47 PM
Well MrJason, you have to keep in mind that since he was committing an illegal act by trying to force her into sex in the first place, he had no legal options for recovering that money.  And perhaps he couldn't effectively overpower her by any other means at the time to get it back.  Therefore his situation may well have fit the definition laid out.

Really, really stupid law.

So, you can now shoot a drug dealer who refuses to give you drugs after you give him the money, and not go to jail for it? Open season, y'all.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on June 08, 2013, 09:25:36 PM
4-year-old boy accidentally kills dad in Arizona (http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/08/3440202/4-year-old-boy-accidentally-kills.html)

Quote
Police say the boy somehow found a gun in the home's living room and accidentally fired it and a bullet hit his father, who was rushed to a hospital where he died.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/08/3440202/4-year-old-boy-accidentally-kills.html#storylink=cpy
So you survive the wars from hell and get killed by your 4 year old.  Pretty ironic.  FOX is already spinning this by saying the dad and his son showed up at a friend's house unannounced and the kid found the gun in the livingroom.  So the gun owner is off the hook because he did not know this kid was coming over.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 09, 2013, 08:50:27 AM
This case Texas is totally bananas.

corrected
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 09, 2013, 08:55:14 AM
University of Maryland medical, dentistry and law schools are in Baltimore,

This was why I was there.  I had to do some trouble shooting at the med school.



Back on track...

The rud pundit's editorial on some of the recent shootings reported here:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/06/all-you-need-to-know-about-irrational.html



Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on June 11, 2013, 04:47:43 AM
Really, really stupid law.

Agreed. Any law that permits someone to take a life to avoid the loss of property (money or otherwise) is a disgrace.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 11, 2013, 07:51:22 AM
Gun Fail 21
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/08/1213103/-GunFAIL-XXI
54 incidents

Quote
This week's compilation includes: six concealed carry ninjas who accidentally shot themselves; four cops who shot themselves (including two local chiefs of police); one gun store owner (i.e., a civilian "gun expert"); one person who shot themselves supposedly teaching another person how to shoot safely; two people cleaning loaded guns (and one who claims he was cleaning it, but sounds like he really wasn't); four kids shot by other kids and one adult shot by a 4-year-old; two pre-schoolers who shot their own fingers off; three home invasion shootings, plus one accidental shooting of someone on an adjacent property and one shooting inside of a single house, but between floors of that house; two gun carriers who accidentally discharged their weapons while out shopping among the public they were making safer, and; 14 kids accidentally shot, aged 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 10, 12, 13, 13, 14, 16, 16, 17 and 17. Six of those kids were killed.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 11, 2013, 08:16:34 AM
BAAAAHHAHAHAHAhahaha!

#7 - Kentucky State Police Post 3 Bowling Green says it received a call from the Barren County Correctional Center stating that Metcalfe County Deputy Sheriff Joshua Neal, 25 of Edmonton, was in the sally port of the jail and accidentally discharged his agency issued firearm. KSP says the bullet struck the right leg of Deputy Neal.
http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/Metcalfe-Co-Deputy-Accidentally-Shoots-Himself-209786511.html

#9 - Police Chief Steven Marshall is on administrative duty after accidentally shooting himself in the hand Friday.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130603/NEWS07/130609796

#47 -  North Ogden Police Chief Kevin Warren is expected to make a full recovery after apparently accidentally shooting himself in the arm Thursday.
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/06/06/updated-north-ogden-police-chief-involved-accidental-shooting

"gun experts" accidentally shooting themselves cracks me up.  They should resign and be forced to wear bells around their necks to identify them as people not allowed to handle guns.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on June 11, 2013, 08:26:10 AM
BAAAAHHAHAHAHAhahaha!

#7 - Kentucky State Police Post 3 Bowling Green says it received a call from the Barren County Correctional Center stating that Metcalfe County Deputy Sheriff Joshua Neal, 25 of Edmonton, was in the sally port of the jail and accidentally discharged his agency issued firearm. KSP says the bullet struck the right leg of Deputy Neal.
http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/Metcalfe-Co-Deputy-Accidentally-Shoots-Himself-209786511.html

#9 - Police Chief Steven Marshall is on administrative duty after accidentally shooting himself in the hand Friday.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130603/NEWS07/130609796

#47 -  North Ogden Police Chief Kevin Warren is expected to make a full recovery after apparently accidentally shooting himself in the arm Thursday.
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/06/06/updated-north-ogden-police-chief-involved-accidental-shooting

"gun experts" accidentally shooting themselves cracks me up.  They should resign and be forced to wear bells around their necks to identify them as people not allowed to handle guns.



Seriously why are these people allowed to handle guns? If you drive a car and accidentally hurt someone with it you get banned from driving, the same should apply to accidents with other lethal weapons
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 11, 2013, 02:37:39 PM
convicted felon writes OPEd thanking NRA:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/10/2130331/felon-in-maximum-security-prison-thanks-the-nra-for-making-it-easy-for-him-to-get-a-gun/

Quote
As a lifelong career criminal, although I no longer enjoy the right to keep and bear arms, I'd like to take a moment to express my appreciation to the National Rifle Association for nonetheless protecting my ability to easily obtain them through its opposition to universal background checks.

Upon release in a few years from my current federal sentence on bank robbery and weapons charges, I fully anticipate being able to stop at a gun show on my way home to Connecticut -- where new laws have made it nearly impossible for a felon to readily purchase guns or ammunition -- in order to buy some with which to resume my criminal activities.

And so, a heartfelt thank you to the NRA and all those members of Congress voting with them. I, along with tens of thousands of other criminals, couldn't do what we do without you.

Gary W. Bornman,
The writer is an inmate at the federal "Supermax" prison in Florence, Colo.

Think progress links his registry in the federal prison database.  I checked snopes and found no hits.  May be too early. I did find an article about someone of the same name having been convicted in Connecticut.  Seems legit.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 11, 2013, 07:17:35 PM
"gun experts" accidentally shooting themselves cracks me up.  They should resign and be forced to wear bells around their necks to identify them as people not allowed to handle guns.

Doctors are the worst patients.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on June 11, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
BAAAAHHAHAHAHAhahaha!

#7 - Kentucky State Police Post 3 Bowling Green says it received a call from the Barren County Correctional Center stating that Metcalfe County Deputy Sheriff Joshua Neal, 25 of Edmonton, was in the sally port of the jail and accidentally discharged his agency issued firearm. KSP says the bullet struck the right leg of Deputy Neal.
http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/Metcalfe-Co-Deputy-Accidentally-Shoots-Himself-209786511.html

#9 - Police Chief Steven Marshall is on administrative duty after accidentally shooting himself in the hand Friday.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130603/NEWS07/130609796

#47 -  North Ogden Police Chief Kevin Warren is expected to make a full recovery after apparently accidentally shooting himself in the arm Thursday.
http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/06/06/updated-north-ogden-police-chief-involved-accidental-shooting

"gun experts" accidentally shooting themselves cracks me up.  They should resign and be forced to wear bells around their necks to identify them as people not allowed to handle guns.
The sheriff in my community shot his deputy in the leg a few years back at a practice range.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 12, 2013, 05:20:24 AM
Texas gun range offers target practice from a helicopter (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/texas-gun-range-offers-target-practice-helicopter-215555159.html)

Quote
Customers pay $795 to take part in the firefight flight, which includes a safety training class, awards ceremony and lunch. Well, and unlike an actual firefight, no returning fire. The individual flights are relatively short, lasting about 15 minutes per person. Still, that’s enough time to fire off an estimated 500 rounds of .233 semiautomatic rifle ammunition.
...
"It's not like we're hitting this every day," Claassen told the station. "So it's not noise pollution. So there is no noise. It's the world safest and quietest helicopter."

There is no noise? Is that because everyone is deaf after the first 100 rounds?

We all know that a helicopter is the safest form of flight in existence. What could possibly go wrong?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on June 12, 2013, 07:00:44 AM
Texas???   Maybe we should let them go off on their own.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 12, 2013, 07:18:42 AM
Nah.  In Texas schools now only 38% of the kids are white.  In 10 years the crazy white guys will be in the minority and a Hispanic Liberal will be governor.  It's only a matter of time. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on June 12, 2013, 07:41:38 AM
Nah.  In Texas schools now only 38% of the kids are white.  In 10 years the crazy white guys will be in the minority and a Hispanic Liberal will be governor.  It's only a matter of time.
Are the white kids in private schools or home schooled or just not there anymore?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 12, 2013, 08:46:26 AM
There are just that many more hispanic kids in Texas now.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Changed-face-of-schools-striking-3537687.php
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20130504-hispanics-now-largest-ethnic-group-in-texas-public-schools.ece
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 12, 2013, 10:02:26 AM
last post on texas demographics:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/11/1215457/-Republicans-either-support-immigration-reform-or-they-kiss-Texas-goodbye

When texas goes blue, and it will be purple soon, the gop may not see the white house for 30 years.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on June 12, 2013, 11:31:29 AM
last post on texas demographics:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/11/1215457/-Republicans-either-support-immigration-reform-or-they-kiss-Texas-goodbye

When texas goes blue, and it will be purple soon, the gop may not see the white house for 30 years.

When that happens, I may get religion. Or not.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on June 12, 2013, 11:37:48 AM
Really, really stupid law.

Agreed. Any law that permits someone to take a life to avoid the loss of property (money or otherwise) is a disgrace.

I want to see a situation where a black mentally ill convicted felon shoots a white gun dealer for not selling him a gun. The "guns for all" people's heads will explode.  &)

Remember that an armed society is a polite society. Like Japan. They are so polite because they are all secretly packing under those business suits, kimonos and anime costumes. Concealed carry cosplay. :o
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 13, 2013, 12:45:26 PM
There are just that many more hispanic kids in Texas now.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Changed-face-of-schools-striking-3537687.php
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20130504-hispanics-now-largest-ethnic-group-in-texas-public-schools.ece

US whites now losing majority in under-5 age group (http://news.msn.com/us/us-whites-now-losing-majority-in-under-5-age-group?ocid=ansnews11)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 13, 2013, 02:12:06 PM
^ Pat Buchanan warned us.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on June 13, 2013, 02:58:06 PM
Gah! I just lost a bit of writing a response to you as well! Arg..... >:(

I'll try again another day. Lo siento mucho.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on June 13, 2013, 07:49:19 PM
There are just that many more hispanic kids in Texas now.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Changed-face-of-schools-striking-3537687.php
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20130504-hispanics-now-largest-ethnic-group-in-texas-public-schools.ece

US whites now losing majority in under-5 age group (http://news.msn.com/us/us-whites-now-losing-majority-in-under-5-age-group?ocid=ansnews11)
Abortions.  See...that is why the right is so anti abortion.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on June 14, 2013, 11:50:35 AM
Well, conservatives sure aren't making it easy for families to have more children. How can they expect middle class people to take care of several kids if they have to work two jobs, pay off mortgage, car and student loans, take care of aging parents and constantly worry about someone getting sick or laid off? (My husband and I are in that situation and we can't imagine having more than the one kid.)

Universal health care, guaranteed unemployment insurance, day care and paid time off for parents are part of the basic social safety net for families in Europe, but Republicans think that stuff is a pie-in-the-sky commie nightmare.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on June 14, 2013, 10:52:25 PM
Abortions.  See...that is why the right is so anti abortion.

I don't know why they want to limit abortion. Seems the black and hispanic girls might want to have a few and that might thin out the herd. But, when has logic ever entered into these situations?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on June 15, 2013, 12:23:55 AM
So, a guy brings a gun into Disneyworld...
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/05/its-armed-world-after-all-how-much-of.html



Employees are allowed to keep guns in their vehicles while at work; so that doesn't surprise me.



You want to talk about dangrous and awful cities, try Baltimore.

Baltimore is not awful, nor quite as dangerous as it is made out to be. It certainly has its problems. Most people are not likely to venture into the areas that are bad anyway, like the west side. I go all over the city for various things. The biggest problems Baltimore has are the large tracts of dilapidated or abandoned housing. Baltimore does have some rather nice sections. The city has gone through a major renaissance that prevented it from becoming what Detroit is today and people are moving into the city every day. Baltimore just needs a lot more of the renaissance.

I've heard the same things stated about Orlando but if I feel if you don't perhaps live in a particular place, compared to your own, then you may listen to all the stories that is said about the place; or based on the minimal experience you may have had in one particular area.

Some areas are bad but that's even true for small towns.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on June 15, 2013, 09:42:49 PM
The info the gov is collecting on us and around the world is so intensive that if it were put on paper and stacked one on top of the other it would go to the moon and back 66 million times.  That is a lot of info.  Think of the massive operation NSA has put together...buildings, computer  storage, money, personnel....all to keep us safe.  How many of us die each year to terror (not counting those of us in wars we should not be in) compared to the 30,000+ who die each year in this country alone from guns...and yet we can't even hardly talk about responsible gun control.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 17, 2013, 12:58:37 PM
gun fail 22
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/15/1214737/-GunFAIL-XXII?showAll=yes

light week. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on June 17, 2013, 04:37:12 PM
The info the gov is collecting on us and around the world is so intensive that if it were put on paper and stacked one on top of the other it would go to the moon and back 66 million times.  That is a lot of info.  Think of the massive operation NSA has put together...buildings, computer  storage, money, personnel....all to keep us safe.  How many of us die each year to terror (not counting those of us in wars we should not be in) compared to the 30,000+ who die each year in this country alone from guns...and yet we can't even hardly talk about responsible gun control.

Yes indeedy. And then they say we can't afford health care, mental health counseling and unemployment benefits.....
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 18, 2013, 02:57:50 PM
Should Mr Redington get his guns back?
http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130618/NEWS02/306180014/IU-student-wants-guns-back-seized-during-Bloomington-police-s-search-Lauren-Spierer
Quote
Redington wasn’t arrested last August when police found him watching the bar through a range finder and discovered two loaded semi-automatic handguns in his pockets and a loaded shotgun in the trunk of his car. Officers found another 48 weapons when they searched his Indianapolis home.

Screwtape says, hell no.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on June 19, 2013, 06:53:08 AM
Should Mr Redington get his guns back?
http://www.indystar.com/viewart/20130618/NEWS02/306180014/IU-student-wants-guns-back-seized-during-Bloomington-police-s-search-Lauren-Spierer
Quote
Redington wasn’t arrested last August when police found him watching the bar through a range finder and discovered two loaded semi-automatic handguns in his pockets and a loaded shotgun in the trunk of his car. Officers found another 48 weapons when they searched his Indianapolis home.

Screwtape says, hell no.

Why didn't they arrest him!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2013, 07:26:52 AM
Why didn't they arrest him!

On what charge?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on June 19, 2013, 07:48:42 AM
Why didn't they arrest him!

On what charge?

Some sort of inchoate offence, an attempt maybe?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2013, 07:58:06 AM
Some sort of inchoate offence, an attempt maybe?

And how would you prove mens rea?  (I'm not being snarky, here, I'm actually asking.)

EDIT:  NB that what he did does not rise to the legal definition of an "attempt".  Preparation is not considered sufficient to charge someone with an attempt.  He does, in fact, actually have to attempt something.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on June 19, 2013, 08:16:08 AM
Some sort of inchoate offence, an attempt maybe?

And how would you prove mens rea?  (I'm not being snarky, here, I'm actually asking.)
Having 2 loaded hand guns in his pockets whilst watching a bar would be a start.
They seem to have had enough evidence not to return the weapons they seized (and search for them in the 1st place.)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2013, 08:22:44 AM
Having 2 loaded hand guns in his pockets whilst watching a bar would be a start.

Yes, it would be a start, but it would not be sufficient.  Merely preparing to commit a crime is not, in itself, a crime.  If John Doe does all the research on how to build a pipe bomb, prints out all the instructions, and buys all the materials, that is not enough to charge him with a crime.  He has to actually build the pipe bomb before he can be charged.  Similarly, even if you take it as read that this guy was planning to kill someone in that bar, that's not sufficient to charge him with an inchoate offense because all he was doing was preparing to commit a crime.

Quote
They seem to have had enough evidence not to return the weapons they seized (and search for them in the 1st place.)

Well, that's the whole thing that's at issue: he is arguing that they do not, in fact, have enough evidence to have seized and/or refused to return his firearms.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on June 19, 2013, 09:07:10 AM
Having 2 loaded hand guns in his pockets whilst watching a bar would be a start.

Yes, it would be a start, but it would not be sufficient.  Merely preparing to commit a crime is not, in itself, a crime.  If John Doe does all the research on how to build a pipe bomb, prints out all the instructions, and buys all the materials, that is not enough to charge him with a crime.  He has to actually build the pipe bomb before he can be charged.  Similarly, even if you take it as read that this guy was planning to kill someone in that bar, that's not sufficient to charge him with an inchoate offense because all he was doing was preparing to commit a crime.
Going beyond "mere"preparation is the issue in question. With bomb making, in the UK possesing instructions on how to do it can be a criminal offence. especially if you have been on fundamentalist websites as well.

Quote
They seem to have had enough evidence not to return the weapons they seized (and search for them in the 1st place.)

Well, that's the whole thing that's at issue: he is arguing that they do not, in fact, have enough evidence to have seized and/or refused to return his firearms.
True. Then the fact that they didn't arrest him would surely work in his favour?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2013, 09:23:30 AM
Going beyond "mere"preparation is the issue in question.

I don't see how.  Even if you take it as read that he was preparing to kill someone in that bar, nothing that he did could be considered anything other than preparation.  Even highly extensive and detailed preparation is still just that -- preparation.  It cannot be considered an attempt.  This is probably why he never got arrested.

Quote
With bomb making, in the UK possesing instructions on how to do it can be a criminal offence. especially if you have been on fundamentalist websites as well.

Things are a little different in the United States -- we take freedom of speech and of the press very seriously, and it's highly unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for having instructions on how to build a bomb.  Although, admittedly, there would also be a good chance that the authorities would investigate you if it came to their attention.

Quote
Then the fact that they didn't arrest him would surely work in his favour?

Most likely, yes, although I am not a lawyer.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on June 19, 2013, 09:40:26 AM
Going beyond "mere"preparation is the issue in question.

I don't see how.  Even if you take it as read that he was preparing to kill someone in that bar, nothing that he did could be considered anything other than preparation.  Even highly extensive and detailed preparation is still just that -- preparation.  It cannot be considered an attempt.  This is probably why he never got arrested.

This is from wiki about "preparation" in the states
"The person has dangerous proximity, or is "dangerously near and close to the accomplishment of the crime." People v. Acosta (N.Y. Court of Appeals 1993).
I think you also have a "going equipped" type statute as well.

Quote
With bomb making, in the UK possesing instructions on how to do it can be a criminal offence. especially if you have been on fundamentalist websites as well.

Things are a little different in the United States -- we take freedom of speech and of the press very seriously, and it's highly unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for having instructions on how to build a bomb.  Although, admittedly, there would also be a good chance that the authorities would investigate you if it came to their attention.
I don't really know. US anti-terror laws are pretty terrifying.

Then the fact that they didn't arrest him would surely work in his favour?

Most likely, yes, although I am not a lawyer.
[/quote]
I would be interested to hear whether he gets his guns back. It seems to me that it should have been an all or nothing i.e. arrest him for something or let him go without penalty.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2013, 10:04:14 AM
This is from wiki about "preparation" in the states
"The person has dangerous proximity, or is "dangerously near and close to the accomplishment of the crime." People v. Acosta (N.Y. Court of Appeals 1993).

The problem is, as a matter of law, you cannot take it as read that he was even contemplating a crime, let alone preparing for one.  As a matter of common sense, of course, being armed and looking at a building thru a scope is a pretty clear indication that he was contemplating a crime, but as a matter of law, it isn't sufficient to demonstrate he intended to do so.  If an innocuous explanation is feasible and cannot be disproven, presumption of innocence applies.

For example, if he had a license to carry -- which he almost certainly did, since he wasn't arrested -- then his carrying two handguns cannot be construed as an implication of criminal intent.  And as far as looking at the bar thru the scope goes, there could be all kinds of other reasons for that.  For example, did he suspect his wife of cheating on him with a man she was meeting in the bar?  Was he trying to find evidence of the infidelity?  Etc etc.

Quote
I think you also have a "going equipped" type statute as well.

That varies from state to state, but it doesn't apply to someone carrying a handgun if he has a license to do so.

Quote
I don't really know. US anti-terror laws are pretty terrifying.

Yes, that's true.

Quote
I would be interested to hear whether he gets his guns back. It seems to me that it should have been an all or nothing i.e. arrest him for something or let him go without penalty.

This, too, varies from state to state, but for the most part, that's correct.  There are some states that have statutes for confiscating someone's guns under some of the more extreme circumstances; for example, if someone openly says he is planning to commit suicide, some states allow the authorities to forcibly disarm that person.  Not sure if there's any relevant law in Indiana.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on June 19, 2013, 11:02:36 AM
Dear screwtape,

First, thanks for being patient. Second, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. Third, my apologies for some of the more flippant remarks. I don't really take this topic all that seriously, for a multitude of reasons. But I understand that you do take it quite seriously, so I'll attempt to respond in kind.

Instead of quoting the entire conversation, I will attempt to summarize my position with the hope that it satisfies your line of questioning. If it does not, I apologize. If there is anything you'd like further clarification on, I'll be happy to answer.

There is no guarantee for anyone to form an insurrection. That is not to say that there is no right for an insurrection. But, as you're aware, rights get trampled on regularly. So when you ask who gets to decide, I can only say it's those that have enough of an organization to actually get it done, because if they don't get it done, I guess their decisions didn't mean much in the end. To paraphrase an old saying; If insurgents win, they're freedom fighters. If they lose, they're criminals. That's just the way it is, and I've no issue with that.

Justification is another topic entirely, which is why I asked you when armed insurrection would be justified. My feeling is that it may be justified when the vast majority of the citizens have no legal recourse for liberty and justice. I know you like to list examples that you believe demonstrate that this has already happened, and perhaps it has, to a degree. Maybe the injustices need more scale, more citizens affected, or more general outrage to motivate people to start doing something about it. Or maybe there isn't as much injustice as needed to spark one. Of course, in a real republic, the "doing something about it" should and does lead people to organize themselves as a voting base, i.e: Tea Party. It's been a fairly effective tool, wouldn't you say? And that's kind of the scary part, isn't it? That someone can organize and motivate that many of a certain type of people.

Your answer to the question of justifiaction leads me to believe that since you don't think it would ever work, it should never be attempted. So why does it work elsewhere?

And, what would motivate you to take up arms against a gov't? Is there anything? If you don't think that a fair question, I've no desire to push for your answer.

To summarize, I do believe there are situations where armed revolt is a viable option, but it is going to be subjective, and there is no complete set of criteria that absolutely must be met.

To the victor go the spoils.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on June 19, 2013, 01:17:17 PM
PD,

Do you not find it a bit of a contradiction in principle, that there are laws in some states that allow one to kill another person for trespassing, or for appearing threatening ("stand your ground" laws), whereas the criminal justice system can't even arrest someone who is pretty clearly preparing to shoot up a bar?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2013, 01:22:20 PM
PD,

Do you not find it a bit of a contradiction in principle, that there are laws in some states that allow one to kill another person for trespassing, or for appearing threatening ("stand your ground" laws), whereas the criminal justice system can't even arrest someone who is pretty clearly preparing to shoot up a bar?

(Setting aside for the moment that you do not appear to have a proper understanding of how "stand your ground" laws work.)

No, I do not.  Briefly, it has to do with presumption of innocence.  I'd explain in more detail, but to be honest, it doesn't sound to me like you're really interested in hearing my views.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on June 19, 2013, 01:30:54 PM
I guess I don't understand.  My impression is that it is up to the individual, under "stand your ground" laws, to determine whether he or she is in danger and respond accordingly.  If one sees someone aiming at them through a gun's scope while one is sitting in a bar, surely that's more of an imminent threat than a black guy approaching one on the street, no?

In terms of legality, I can see how the criminal justice system wouldn't be able to act on either case, as no crime has yet been committed.  It's just odd to me that is situations where police may not be cleared to act, individuals can be.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2013, 01:56:43 PM
I guess I don't understand.  My impression is that it is up to the individual, under "stand your ground" laws, to determine whether he or she is in danger and respond accordingly.

That's not how it works.  "Stand your ground" laws remove the duty to retreat, but that's all they do -- all other elements of self-defense law still apply.  Broadly speaking, three elements that must be present to exonerate an individual in a self-defense killing are: 1) the individual must believe that he is in danger of death or serious injury; 2) that belief must be held for reasons that a "reasonable person" would consider to be valid; and 3) the individual must use no more force than is reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.  You can't just say you felt threatened and start blazing away.

Quote
If one sees someone aiming at them through a gun's scope while one is sitting in a bar

In this case, the scope was not attached to a gun.  If he had actually been pointing a gun at the bar instead of just looking at the bar thru a scope, he would have been committing a crime and would most likely have been arrested for it.

Quote
surely that's more of an imminent threat than a black guy approaching one on the street, no?

It would be, if that was what had happened, but it isn't.

Quote
It's just odd to me that is situations where police may not be cleared to act, individuals can be.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Quote
What am I missing?

It's just that, as in so many other areas regarding legal matters, the law is a lot more complicated than most people think it is.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on June 19, 2013, 02:35:16 PM
Quote
If one sees someone aiming at them through a gun's scope while one is sitting in a bar

In this case, the scope was not attached to a gun.  If he had actually been pointing a gun at the bar instead of just looking at the bar thru a scope, he would have been committing a crime and would most likely have been arrested for it.

I misunderstood a number of things that you've cleared up, but this was the biggest one.  I was responding under the impression that there was a gun attached to the scope.  That is a big difference, as you say.[1]
 1. Not that the guy's actions aren't incredibly suspicious as it stands, mind you...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 20, 2013, 09:07:10 AM
Orlando airport is the airport where they find the most guns.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-gun-orlando-international-airport-20130618,0,3214542.story

hurray for responsible gun ownership.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 25, 2013, 07:24:38 AM
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/mississippi-open-carry-law-062413

This is going to be interesting to watch.


also, Gun fail 23
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/22/1216658/-GunFAIL-XXIII

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 25, 2013, 07:41:31 AM
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/mississippi-open-carry-law-062413

This is going to be interesting to watch.

I doubt it.  Quite a few states already have open carry, and nobody talks about it much.

Edit to add map:

(http://www.opencarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/opencarrymap-Nov1-2012.png)

So as you can see, open carry in one form or another is actually already lawful in most of the country -- only a handful of states (the ones in red) prohibit it.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 25, 2013, 08:15:48 AM
The map is misleading.  It shows NJ as an open carry state.  It may be technically but in reality, it is almost impossible.  You have to be law enforcement to be able to carry in NJ, with few exceptions.  It may be similar for other states, particularly New England states.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 25, 2013, 08:26:24 AM
The map is misleading.  It shows NJ as an open carry state.  It may be technically but in reality, it is almost impossible.  You have to be law enforcement to be able to carry in NJ, with few exceptions.

That's not correct -- if you have a license to carry in New Jersey, you can carry openly.  (Getting the license, of course, is another matter.)

Quote
It may be similar for other states, particularly New England states.

Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all allow open carry without a license.  The other three New England states allow it with a license.  When I was living in Vermont, I open carried there quite a bit.  A friend of mine who lived in Vermont but worked in Massachusetts had a Massachusetts carry license.  He routinely open carried and never had a problem.  In fact, on a few occasions, cops who saw him complimented him on his choice of sidearm (he had a Sig Sauer, which is a very high-quality handgun).
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 25, 2013, 09:31:38 AM
That's not correct -- if you have a license to carry in New Jersey, you can carry openly.  (Getting the license, of course, is another matter.)

yes, that's what I meant.  I was not thorough in explaining.  Thus, almost no one actually carries.  In almost 20 years here I've never seen anyone out of uniform with a gun in public.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 25, 2013, 09:44:54 AM
That's not correct -- if you have a license to carry in New Jersey, you can carry openly.  (Getting the license, of course, is another matter.)

yes, that's what I meant.  I was not thorough in explaining.  Thus, almost no one actually carries.  In almost 20 years here I've never seen anyone out of uniform with a gun in public.

I'm not surprised.  When it comes to issuing carry licenses, New Jersey is probably the second "stingiest" state in the nation, after Hawaii.  The last time I looked into it, New Jersey had issued only some 3,000 or so licenses if memory serves.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 25, 2013, 12:56:41 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on June 25, 2013, 01:11:15 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

I already knew most of that, but it's refreshing to see an article that can present such information objectively.  Slate, in particular, tends to lean to the left, so seeing them report the positive side of gun ownership is a pleasant surprise for which they deserve credit.  I have to admit that I often get so passionate about this topic that it's sometimes hard for me to concede any points to the other side.

In unrelated news, the backlog on regulated firearms purchases in Maryland is not clearing up.  I've been waiting almost three months to pick up my Beretta.  Bleah.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on June 25, 2013, 02:12:22 PM
I have to admit that I often get so passionate about this topic that it's sometimes hard for me to concede any points to the other side.

It's good that you can admit it.  Try the Litany of Tarski (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Litany_of_Tarski).  It seems a little weird and cultish, but I find it helps me.  The brain in my head is the only one I have, so I have to find ways to make it work.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on July 02, 2013, 10:37:43 AM
Driver shot in Orlando was mistaken for someone else (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Blog/2013/07/02/Driver-shot-in-Orlando-was-mistaken-for-someone-else/6791372770675/)

Quote
The man who shot and killed Fred William Turner as he was driving on I-4 near Orlando on Sunday claims he did it because he thought Turner was someone else.

...

Investigators claim Hayes, who is registered as a felon is Osceola County, turned himself in Monday morning.

Random act of delayed violence without bothering to verify who the victim should be. 


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on July 02, 2013, 02:59:39 PM
Driver shot in Orlando was mistaken for someone else (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Blog/2013/07/02/Driver-shot-in-Orlando-was-mistaken-for-someone-else/6791372770675/)

Quote
The man who shot and killed Fred William Turner as he was driving on I-4 near Orlando on Sunday claims he did it because he thought Turner was someone else.

...

Investigators claim Hayes, who is registered as a felon is Osceola County, turned himself in Monday morning.

Random act of delayed violence without bothering to verify who the victim should be.

And the guy thought it was a good idea to just shoot at someone who was not bothering him, because he thought it was someone he had once had a fight with?

WTF is that? The "I thought he was this other a$$hole" defense? :P
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on July 02, 2013, 06:39:27 PM
And the guy thought it was a good idea to just shoot at someone who was not bothering him, because he thought it was someone he had once had a fight with?

WTF is that? The "I thought he was this other a$$hole" defense? :P

Well, he has now committed two felonies. All he needs is one more felony and he will be a permanent ward of the state at a likely cost of $80K/year. Of course, Florida might give him a jolt ... 10-15 years from now.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on July 02, 2013, 07:50:58 PM
Hey, he was standing his ground.  It could have been the guy he was looking for.  You don't want to miss those opportunities.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: kin hell on July 10, 2013, 10:34:53 AM
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/15-Shot-As-Holiday-Weekend-Begins-214275491.html (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/15-Shot-As-Holiday-Weekend-Begins-214275491.html)


Quote
72 Shot in Chicago in Wave of Holiday Weekend Violence

impressive figures
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on July 10, 2013, 11:22:41 AM
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/15-Shot-As-Holiday-Weekend-Begins-214275491.html (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/15-Shot-As-Holiday-Weekend-Begins-214275491.html)


Quote
72 Shot in Chicago in Wave of Holiday Weekend Violence

impressive figures
Wow, add that to the 72 virgins you get when going to heaven and I see a pattern here.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on July 10, 2013, 03:50:37 PM
Without even reading the details, I'll bet all 72 of those people were evil international criminals, wanted by the FBI and Interpol, caught in the very act of perpetrating heinious 4th of July crimes against hundreds of innocent total strangers.  :P

And I am sure alcohol had nothing to do with any of the shootings. Amirite? &)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on July 30, 2013, 11:26:57 AM
Got behind in my gun fails.

24  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/29/1218208/-GunFAIL-XXIV

25  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/07/1220100/-GunFAIL-XXV

26  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/13/1221928/-GunFAIL-XXVI

27  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/20/1223553/-GunFAIL-XXVII

28  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/27/1225271/-GunFAIL-XXVIII


200-250 shootings, accidents, cops leaving guns in schools, and idiots shooting bystanders.  I like the one in 26 where a guy gave his gun to a drunk friend so he could see it.  The owner decided that was a bad idea and asked for it back.  The drunk idiot, being a drunk idiot, didn't want to give it back.  The owner tried to take it.  They struggled.  The drunk idiot was shot in the head and killed.  Horray for responsible gun owners!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on July 30, 2013, 12:16:39 PM
25, 16 is just plain stupid. The woman shot at her own house to scare away intruders? And now her grandson is dead.

One thing we know for sure -- the local thieves will no longer try to steal from her when they know she is willing to shoot her own grandson to keep them away.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on July 30, 2013, 01:10:23 PM
25, 16 is just plain stupid. The woman shot at her own house to scare away intruders? And now her grandson is dead.

An even stupider one in an earlier gun fail: a man in his home had an argument with his son and to get his attention, shot at a wall.  The bullet struck the son's girlfriend on the other side of the wall and killed her. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on July 30, 2013, 01:52:26 PM
25, 16 is just plain stupid. The woman shot at her own house to scare away intruders? And now her grandson is dead.

An even stupider one in an earlier gun fail: a man in his home had an argument with his son and to get his attention, shot at a wall.  The bullet struck the son's girlfriend on the other side of the wall and killed her.

A few years back, there was a goblin who decided to mug a guy who was wearing a baseball cap with the NRA logo on it, apparently not being able to put two and two together.  The encounter ended with a rather predictable result.  I don't remember for sure whether the goblin lived, but I think he did.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on July 30, 2013, 03:42:40 PM
I predict tragedy.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/30/19771320-guns-in-school-ark-district-arming-more-than-20-teachers-staff?lite

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on July 30, 2013, 04:53:53 PM
Adding more guns to a school environment? It's not like there are kids around who have bad judgment or anything like that. And overworked, underpaid teachers need the added responsibility of one more really important thing to worry about. Securing the classroom gun safe....

"Let's see, it's 2:45, kids all made it to the bus, got my papers to grade, grab purse, make sure my desk is locked, check windows, detect intruder at door, draw weapon, lay down a barrage of opening fire, secure the perimeter, ascertain that intruder is down, determine that intruder is Bobby Hansen, age 12, coming back for his forgotten baseball cap. Was Bobby Hansen." :o
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on July 31, 2013, 06:57:39 AM
I see something more along the lines of this:
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/10/cops_gun_stolen_from_hoover_ba.html
or this
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/01/26/former-cop-who-left-gun-in-grade-school-bathroom-wont-be-fired/
or this
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Cops-Search-for-Lost-Gun-of-Previous-Snoozing-Cop-186068242.html
or this
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51977024-78/officer-police-lake-salt.html.csp
or this
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x1433779405/Plymouth-cop-who-lost-gun-suspended-for-20-days
or this
http://rt.com/usa/gun-school-bathroom-guard-293/

Plus, I think you have to consider how kids growing up in that environment would change the culture.  Policies affect culture 20 years down the road.  When we started doing drug testing 30 years ago, it prepared a whole generation to be drug tested.  Now people see drug testing as normal.  I still see it as a massive violation of my privacy and every time I interview for a job it pisses me off.  Especially since now they also want to run a credit check on me.  What next, send someone to rifle though my underwear drawer?

So, what will a generation growing up in a militarized environment do to the culture 25 years from now?  Are we preparing children to live in a police state? 

good slate piece http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/04/09/nra_recommends_arming_school_officials_why_guns_in_school_are_a_bad_idea.html
The first point is the best, I think.  Kids do get their hands on everything.  You cannot hide anything from them. 


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on July 31, 2013, 07:09:41 AM
Plus, I think you have to consider how kids growing up in that environment would change the culture.  Policies affect culture 20 years down the road.  When we started doing drug testing 30 years ago, it prepared a whole generation to be drug tested.  Now people see drug testing as normal.  I still see it as a massive violation of my privacy and every time I interview for a job it pisses me off.  Especially since now they also want to run a credit check on me.  What next, send someone to rifle though my underwear drawer?

I agree with this completely.  I've said before that it's the old "boiling the frog" thing (although that's actually a myth, but that's a separate discussion).  You introduce one invasion, desensitize everyone to it for a while, let it become the norm, then proceed to the next invasion.

I'm going to be flying to Ireland in September, and as much as I'm looking forward to this trip, the flying part is giving me a really sinking feeling.  I'm old enough to remember when flying was actually enjoyable; I also recall the process during which it became merely tolerable, then a hassle, and now a tremendously miserable experience.  Younger people, of course, aren't going to be able to tell the difference, at least, not very well, which means that what they'll simply regard the current situation as the norm and whatever new intrusions get added later as being the "real" invasion.  When they see movies like "Airplane!", where the kid is allowed to visit the cockpit and things like that, they'll intellectually understand that it used to be allowed, but they won't "get it".
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on July 31, 2013, 10:40:06 AM
The spectacularly unhelpful second amendment
(The most controversial amendment to the Bill of Rights is also the most confusingly worded)

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/28/the_spectacularly_unhelpful_second_amendment/

Long essay trying to understand the language of the second amendment.  It can be so many things to so many people.  Not really what you want in a legal document.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on July 31, 2013, 11:13:11 AM
You are spot on, pianodwarf. But now that they have gotten us so used to intrusions, they are no longer concerned about gently stepping up the levels. The latest revelations regarding a certain spyish agency whose name I don't think we're allowed to say being a case in point. Soon we'll be hearing the drones of drones, which will go along with the drones of politicians who will be telling us there is nothing to worry about. We're cooked unless we can find a way to affect change. And I doubt we can.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on July 31, 2013, 04:12:10 PM
I agree.

It used to be fun, a treat, even, back in the day, but nowadays I hate flying; increasingly, I try to avoid situations where I will have to fly somewhere, and I bet I am not the only one.

I hate being treated like a criminal in order to ride on transportation; having belongings confiscated several times and never returned; as a dreadlocked black woman always getting picked for the "random" additional screening while my white husband walks on through; being assumed guilty of unknown offenses and looked at suspiciously by other passengers; the hand pat-downs; the naked machine-- and now, having to teach my daughter to undergo the same. >:(

As recently as the late 1990's, my husband and I waited together at the gate, kissed each other goodbye and saw the spouse get onto the flight. I remember meeting folks right as they got off the plane. The days of walking your friends to the gate and saying goodbye, well, we kissed that good bye. :-*

And, although we have inconvenienced everyone and accustomed everyone to more "security", we are not safer from terrorism. Anyone who wants to can walk into an airport, shopping mall or public gathering a la Boston Marathon and commit a violent act. It has always been that way-- look at the US anarchist bombings in the early 20th century.

Better social services including mental health care, especially for veterans, some technical fixes to track bomb materials and guns, and less military involvement in foreign countries would do far more to reduce the terror threat at a fraction of the cost in time, money and personal liberty. (Gets down, slowly due to arthritic knees,  from soapbox.)

Did I say I hate flying?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 01, 2013, 07:08:08 AM
While I enjoyed your righteous post on flying, ngfm, I beg the rest of you to not add to that.  I could write a rant at least three times that long on flying and security, and I'd rather this not become a flying thread.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on August 01, 2013, 06:05:06 PM
Sorry. Back to the regularly scheduled gun stuff.  :angel:

Guns! Love 'em? Hate 'em? What say you?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on August 01, 2013, 06:19:18 PM
Sorry. Back to the regularly scheduled gun stuff.  :angel:

Guns! Love 'em? Hate 'em? What say you?

You know... it's really pretty odd.

I live in the Metro DC area, and around here, practically any job you apply for is going to require a credit check, background investigation, fingerprints, and the whole schemer.  (And that's just for unclassified work, never mind stuff that requires a security clearance.)  That being the case, I've been thru that dance quite a few times.  And I hate it.  I'm a very private person, and I deeply resent the intrusiveness of the whole process, and I also resent the inherent assumption that I should have to prove that I'm innocent before I'm allowed to get a job.  On the other hand, I also have to admit that I wouldn't want anyone being allowed to work for the federal government without a background check.  So I've got very mixed feelings about it whenever I have to deal with it myself.  I feel kind of the same about firearms.  I really wish we lived in a world where I didn't feel like I needed one, but this isn't that world.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Spit on August 01, 2013, 06:52:41 PM
Sorry. Back to the regularly scheduled gun stuff.  :angel:

Guns! Love 'em? Hate 'em? What say you?
Love em! Most of what I read here and there isn't even close to the experience I have with guns. Most of us you would never know we even own them. Unless of course you break in.  ;D
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on August 02, 2013, 06:21:58 AM
Man charged with firing gun in apartment (http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/crime_and_justice/crime/article_14665f3a-dabb-5587-9f16-32e54e8f2253.html)

Quote
A Frederick man was charged Thursday after police said he fired a handgun in his apartment, sending a bullet into the bedroom of another apartment below.

...

“Both females were involved in a verbal altercation,” the release said. “One of the females inside the residence was then assaulted by Ashman. The two females later went to sleep. Ashman then went into his bedroom and fired one round into the floor.”



Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 05, 2013, 08:34:31 AM
Ah, Florida.
http://www.pnj.com/article/20130728/NEWS11/307280027/Deputies-shoot-man-his-front-yard?nclick_check=1

I guess the Zimmerman verdict made some people think it's now open season on black people.

Quote
He said he backed out of the vehicle with his hands raised, but when he turned to face the deputies, they immediately opened fire.

Luckily, their aim stinks and he survived.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on August 05, 2013, 07:33:55 PM
Wherever crazy starts, always remember: Florida First!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 06, 2013, 07:25:42 AM
Okay, so this is not guns, per se.  It is constitutional civil rights. It turns out the NSA is collecting all of our phone call data and all of our emails.  It is then handing information over to the DEA and Justice Department. 

http://preview.reuters.com/2013/8/5/exclusive-us-directs-agents-to-cover-up-program-1

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/NSA-handing-over-non-terror-intelligence-4706227.php#page-2

So, this is, as one prosecutor says in the SF Gate article, a "bright line Fourth Amendment violation".  I mention this because one of the main arguments gun nuts advocates have for their right is "to prevent tyranny".  As I've discussed here with Dante and several others, that's just fantasy. 

These news items relate because what is tyranny but the abrogation of our rights?  It turns out the only right gun advocates care about is the right to own a gun.  All the other rights, which actually matter more in a democracy, are more or less irrelevant to them.  The guns vs tyranny argument is just an ego-stroking justification they use but have no intention of fulfilling.  Otherwise they would literally be up in arms over this.

Whither thou hidest, patriots?


edit - let me add this tidbit, which should make your blood boil.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=1

If this does not warrant shooting someone then nothing does.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on August 06, 2013, 08:19:28 AM

edit - let me add this tidbit, which should make your blood boil.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=1

If this does not warrant shooting someone then nothing does.

I read that same story this morning, screwtape, and of course it pisses me off.

I have a friend who, back in the late 80's was talked into selling one illegal amphetamine pill to an undercover cop (because the guy kept asking and was driving him crazy. He was a pot user, but he'd never sold anything before.) He was arrested and put through all sorts of grief, though he did manage to avoid prison. He was on probation with all the inconveniences involved for a number of years. And is of course will be considered a felon for life.

Anyway, another friend, who is a bit higher on the social scale, is good friends with local attorneys and judges and such. He was told that my friend was arrested because federal monies were available to law enforcement jurisdictions but that had to catch some bad guys first. And my little town in Montana didn't really have any. So that had to make one up.

The irony here, given the topic of this discussion, is that the thing that pissed my screwed friend the most was that he lost his freedom to own a gun until after the probation period was over, and he loved hunting. That bothered him more than anything else.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on August 06, 2013, 08:49:07 AM
Whither thou hidest, patriots?

All we need is some leadership and organization! I elect senor screwtape!

But we know your organization would fail, solely because, like you said, most gun folks are right wing, and don't seem to take offense to the erosion of some rights.

That, and the fact that you're a bleedin' heart godless commie liberal  ;)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 06, 2013, 08:53:11 AM
That, and the fact that you're a bleedin' heart godless commie liberal  ;)

I kind of am.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Tero on August 07, 2013, 06:52:33 AM
Canadian gun enthusiast gets shot
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=8744348
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: shnozzola on August 09, 2013, 07:39:54 AM
Quote
NPR:  Chicago has been plagued by gun violence.  One weekend last month nearly a dozen people were shot and killed.


(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/08/08/perteet_extra5-15a3f130f9d9991a161208ddba2bd9d6062b5f89-s40.jpg)
Quote
Ondelee Perteet and his mother, Detreena, at their home in Chicago. In 2009, 14-year-old Ondelee was shot in the jaw at a birthday party on Chicago's West Side. The bullet severed his spine, paralyzing him from the neck down. His doctors told him that he would never walk again, but three years later, he is walking with the help of crutches.

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/09/210184867/surviving-tragedy-it-brought-us-closer
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on August 09, 2013, 01:15:02 PM
^^^^That is so sad. This kid and his mom will be dealing with that every day for the rest of their lives.

Gun promoters seem to forget that not everyone who gets shot is a bad guy, and not everyone who gets shot dies. Far more will be disabled and dependent on family, friends and the government for the rest of their lives. Some will be in constant pain; some never be able to support themselves or to contribute to society. That means that someone else has to take care of them. Add in the cost--financial as well as emotional-- of all that. :(
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Tero on August 17, 2013, 06:16:42 PM
Mercifully penis shooter dies
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/16/geronimo-narciso-truck-driver-dies-accidentally-shooting-off-penis_n_3767528.html
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 19, 2013, 09:16:14 AM
gunfails 29, 30, 31

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/03/1227010/-GunFAIL-XXIX
(two people shot themselves in the groin)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/12/1228749/-GunFAIL-XXX


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/17/1230442/-GunFAIL-XXXI
"In Alabama, a new law went into effect on August 1st which allows employees to bring their guns to work. For those wondering how long it would take for Alabama employees to start accidentally shooting one another at work, the answer is at hand: 12 days."
BAAAAHAHAHAHA!


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on August 19, 2013, 12:06:11 PM
gunfails 29, 30, 31

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/03/1227010/-GunFAIL-XXIX
(two people shot themselves in the groin)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/12/1228749/-GunFAIL-XXX


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/17/1230442/-GunFAIL-XXXI
"In Alabama, a new law went into effect on August 1st which allows employees to bring their guns to work. For those wondering how long it would take for Alabama employees to start accidentally shooting one another at work, the answer is at hand: 12 days."
BAAAAHAHAHAHA!
A few lives here and there is worth it to keep that once in a life time person from coming into your area.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 19, 2013, 12:29:34 PM
from 31:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865584606/Homeowner-shoots-at-burglar-who-then-steals-his-gun-police-say.html
Quote
A homeowner confronted a burglar Tuesday and fired a shot at him, but the burglar took away his weapon and ran off, police say.

also from 31:
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/23130131/multiple-people-shot
Quote
One man accidentally shot himself twice in the groin when pulling out his gun, says investigators.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Tero on August 20, 2013, 07:50:51 PM
"They were bored and just wanted to see somebody die," Ford told ABCNews.com.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/australian-baseball-player-chris-lane-gunned-alleged-oklahoma/story?id=20000982
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on August 21, 2013, 06:56:39 AM
Hey, why not.  That is our gun culture now.  If you were a parent in another country you would have to think twice about sending your kid over here as a foreign exchange student. 

Also, another nut in an elem school with a gun in Georgia yesterday.  Exchanged shoots with law enforcement.  But, as always, it is too soon to talk about guns.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on August 21, 2013, 09:21:51 PM
Quote
NPR:  Chicago has been plagued by gun violence.  One weekend last month nearly a dozen people were shot and killed.


http://www.npr.org/2013/08/09/210184867/surviving-tragedy-it-brought-us-closer

The kid referred to here was shot in 2009, before the McDonald vs. Chicago decision.  It was illegal to own guns in Chicago for what, thirty years or so?

So, let's pass a new law that says, "It's illegal to own guns in Chicago, and this time we really, really mean it."

The problems in Chicago are gangs and the war on drugs. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 22, 2013, 08:08:29 AM
The problems in Chicago are gangs and the war on drugs. 

I agree those are both large contributing factors.  Another problem would be the ease with which Chigagoans can acquire guns from nearby states.

Sometimes I observe new parents.  Often times their parental philosophies do not correspond or one parent is just not as consistent as the other.  The child goes to one parent for a treat and is denied.  So the child goes to the other and is rewarded.  Thus, one parent undermines the other. 

So it is with states and gun laws.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on August 22, 2013, 08:26:00 AM
The problems in Chicago are gangs and the war on drugs. 

I agree those are both large contributing factors.

I wonder whether the rampant corruption in Chicago might be related somehow as well.  I don't know much about it, just speculating.

Quote
Another problem would be the ease with which Chigagoans can acquire guns from nearby states.

It's not quite that simple.  Under federal law, you are required to make firearms purchases in the state that you live in, and if there's a gun in another state that you want to buy, you have to have it transferred to a dealer who's licensed in your own state, then handle the transfer thru your state's dealer in accordance with both your own state's laws and the federal laws.  A Chicago resident can't just waltz into a gun shop in Detroit and buy a gun.  I'm having to deal with this in Maryland right now myself, and it's quite a hassle.  (Not to mention an expense.)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 22, 2013, 10:15:25 AM
A Chicago resident can't just waltz into a gun shop in Detroit and buy a gun. 

Perhaps.  I'm not sure of the exact laws.  However, if I am not mistaken, and I may be, they can waltz into a gun show in Indiana and buy a gun and no one would be any the wiser.  Or they can buy a gun from a private owner in Illinois, again without any form of notification.  Neither scenario is regulated in any way, as I understand.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on August 22, 2013, 10:55:52 AM
A Chicago resident can't just waltz into a gun shop in Detroit and buy a gun. 

Perhaps.  I'm not sure of the exact laws.  However, if I am not mistaken, and I may be, they can waltz into a gun show in Indiana and buy a gun and no one would be any the wiser.  Or they can buy a gun from a private owner in Illinois, again without any form of notification.  Neither scenario is regulated in any way, as I understand.

GIYF.  ;-)

For example:

Quote
Who needs a FOID card?

Unless specifically exempted by statute, any Illinois resident who acquires or possesses firearm or firearm ammunition within the State must have in their possession a valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card issued in his or her name. Non residents are not required to have a FOID card. New Illinois residents have sixty calendar days after obtaining an Illinois driver’s license or Illinois Identification Card to obtain a FOID card.

..........

Does Illinois have a waiting period for firearm purchases and does it apply to private sales?

Yes. Illinois law requires withholding the delivery of a concealable weapon (i.e. a handgun) for at least 72 hours and a rifle, shotgun, or other long gun for at least 24 hours. This applies for gun dealers and private sales.

Source:  http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

The other information you lack is available by searches as well, but I'll let you take care of that.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 22, 2013, 12:18:32 PM
Thanks. 

There is no FOID verification at an out of state gun show or buying from a private seller.   It is essentially an honor system.  And since a gun registry is tantamount to fascism in the eyes of many gun owners, there is no way to track whether someone sold a gun. 

The FOID only works if the only place a Chicago resident could get a gun were a licensed gun dealer.  But that is not the case.

Is there a gaping hole in the system or not?



Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on August 22, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
There is no FOID verification at an out of state gun show or buying from a private seller.   It is essentially an honor system.  And since a gun registry is tantamount to fascism in the eyes of many gun owners, there is no way to track whether someone sold a gun. 

The FOID only works if the only place a Chicago resident could get a gun were a licensed gun dealer.  But that is not the case.

Well, yes, a private seller in Illinois could sell a handgun to someone else without checking on their FOID or waiting the three days mandated by law for transferring the gun -- but that would be illegal.  I thought we were discussing legal gun sales.

As to gun shows in other states, yes, you are correct -- it is essentially an honor system.  The question of how many criminals get their guns at such shows is, as you may imagine if you don't already know, hotly debated.  In any event, the exemption to the background checks applies only to people who sell guns on relatively rare occasions... if you were to sell guns at such shows in any kind of volume, you would be considered to be a "gun dealer" under federal law and would therefore not be exempt from performing the background check.

It's murky.  I haven't looked up the case law about this kind of thing, but I'd hazard a guess that there have been cases where someone privately sold, say, a dozen guns in a year and was charged with selling guns without a license, and who pled not guilty on the ground that he wasn't a "gun dealer" as the law defines it.

Personally, the whole thing makes me uneasy, and I do feel fortunate in that I've never had to deal with selling a firearm.  In a weird way, though, I think I'd feel more comfortable doing it here in Maryland, which requires private sellers to perform all the same paperwork, background checks, and so on that a regular gun store has to do.  It's a hassle, but on the other hand, as long as the red-tape-ridden procedure exists, it also gives me a lot of protection if I ever do sell one of my guns and get accused of any wrongdoing in doing so.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 22, 2013, 12:42:10 PM
I thought we were discussing legal gun sales.

Well, yes and no.  My point was in response to Odin.  He was saying gangs and the drug war were The Problems in Chicago.  I agreed they were problems, but there was more to it than that.

I was pointing out that there are areas where the law is completely unenforceable or inapplicable.  I am sure there are plenty of otherwise law-abiding people in Illinois who have guns but no FOID.  And if the whole point of the gun laws is to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, then the laws are incomplete.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 24, 2013, 11:17:27 AM
I dunno if this ought to go in this thread or the militarized police state thread.

A-hole Sheriff Joe Arpaio's deputies confront A-hole Sheriff Joe Arpaio's minute men.  Hilarity ensues.
The Rude Pundit's take (nsfw)
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/08/thinning-herd-joe-arpaios-cops-and.html


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 29, 2013, 09:43:56 AM
Rude Pundit's take on the Arpaio- Minuteman showdown:

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/08/thinning-herd-joe-arpaios-cops-and.html

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on August 29, 2013, 12:38:01 PM
I was pointing out that there are areas where the law is completely unenforceable or inapplicable.  I am sure there are plenty of otherwise law-abiding people in Illinois who have guns but no FOID.  And if the whole point of the gun laws is to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, then the laws are incomplete.
 

You're kind of arguing our point for us.  Since folks who break the laws, by definition, don't follow laws, more laws are not the answer.  If I sell a gun to an out-of-state person, I am breaking the law unless the transaction is completed using an FFL.  No amount of new laws would change that.

The only "gun show loophole" that exists, as far as I can tell, is that I can buy a long gun at a local gun show from another resident of my state, and there is no background check.  The seller is charged with ascertaining, to the best of his or her abilities, that I am not prohibited from owning the long gun - not a convicted felon, insane, etc.  If I buy a handgun, I am required to have a pistol permit or concealed carry license.  In that case, I have already been subjected to a comprehensive background check.

The law that would have to be passed to change the above would be to subject all sales at gun shows, say within the confines of the gun show grounds, to background checks.  More comprehensive changes would require that all private sales go through FFLs and some sort of background checks.  As to the former change, if I didn't want to go through the check at the show, and it was still legal to buy a long gun direct from a resident, I could just arrange for a later meeting outside the gun show grounds.

As to Chicago's problems - why should it be harder for someone in, say, rural Wyoming to buy a hunting gun or even a self-defense gun, just because Chicago has a gang problem? 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on August 29, 2013, 01:24:33 PM
Well, it isn't looking too good for us liberals that just want to take all the guns away...

The title says it all.

http://lifesciencephdadventures.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/harvard-gun-study-less-guns-results-in-more-violence/ (http://lifesciencephdadventures.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/harvard-gun-study-less-guns-results-in-more-violence/)

I'll be interested to see how various folks in the media and elsewhere react to this study.

It just may be that things are too broken to fix.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on August 29, 2013, 01:40:02 PM
Well, it isn't looking too good for us liberals that just want to take all the guns away...

The title says it all.

http://lifesciencephdadventures.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/harvard-gun-study-less-guns-results-in-more-violence/ (http://lifesciencephdadventures.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/harvard-gun-study-less-guns-results-in-more-violence/)

I'll be interested to see how various folks in the media and elsewhere react to this study.

It just may be that things are too broken to fix.

Well, I think we've talked about it before. Violent crime does rise, but gun deaths decline substantially.

Pick your poison.

Of course, most gun deaths are suicide, so it's difficult, if not impossible, to figure out how many of those suicides would be prevented were it not for guns, because obviously some, if not many, of those suicides would be successful using other means.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 29, 2013, 04:27:32 PM
You're kind of arguing our point for us.  Since folks who break the laws, by definition, don't follow laws, more laws are not the answer.  If I sell a gun to an out-of-state person, I am breaking the law unless the transaction is completed using an FFL.  No amount of new laws would change that.

No, I'm not arguing your point for you.  I'm arguing for better laws that have different requirements and are uniform from state to state.  I am arguing for laws to establish mechanisms for enforcement that make it possible to find out when someone has broken the law.  You guys act like it is impossible to improve the situation.  It's not.   

Quote
The only "gun show loophole" that exists, as far as I can tell, is that I can buy a long gun at a local gun show from another resident of my state, and there is no background check.  The seller is charged with ascertaining, to the best of his or her abilities, that I am not prohibited from owning the long gun - not a convicted felon, insane, etc.  If I buy a handgun, I am required to have a pistol permit or concealed carry license.  In that case, I have already been subjected to a comprehensive background check.

You only seem to half understand the part of this you want to understand.  That is a law that puts the entire requirement for adherence on the buyer.  It is essentially an honor system.  Where else in the world do we do that?  If you want perscription drugs you go to a regulated pharmacy with a regulated prescription.  You don't show up and they just sell you whatever you want, assuming you have a script and if you don't, well gee, criminals will be criminals. 

That is a gigantic loophole that makes it so easy to break the law.  It is not that more laws are needed.  It is that this law is written stupidly.  There is only a requirement in 14 states for background checks at gun shows.[1]  Why?  Why not make it a felony to sell to someone who does not have a permit or does not pass a background check?  Why should you not have to prove you can own a gun before you buy it?

This seems so obvious to me.  I don't understand why anyone argumes.  It strikes me as rather obtuse.

Quote
I could just arrange for a later meeting outside the gun show grounds.

I'm 100% in favor of gun registration and making this^ a felony.   

As to Chicago's problems - why should it be harder for someone in, say, rural Wyoming to buy a hunting gun or even a self-defense gun, just because Chicago has a gang problem? 

Oh for fuckssake, whining and hyperbole isn't an argument.  And last I checked, gangs are not outfitted with hunting rifles.  Most gun crimes are carried out with handguns.

When I was considering buying a gun I researched the guns I could get.  I wanted a 12 gage autoloader, a tactical gun for home defense.  It comes with an 8 shot or 5 shot magazine. When I found out the 8 shot was considered and assault weapon in my state, and not available to the general public, I was a little miffed.  Why shouldn't I be able to have this, goddammit?  Realistically, 5 shots is more than what I would need.  But because I could not have the 8 shot, I wanted it all the more.

I think this is the basis for all pro-gun arguments.  Gun owners are not thinking about felons, or the mentally ill, or the idiots.  They aren't thinking about how to make the laws work.  They are not thinking about the general public or their neighbors' kids.  They are just thinking about the toys they want and the possibility of them being forbidden.  Kinda selfish if you ask me.

 1. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on August 30, 2013, 08:20:25 AM
That is a gigantic loophole that makes it so easy to break the law.  It is not that more laws are needed.  It is that this law is written stupidly.  There is only a requirement in 14 states for background checks at gun shows.[1]  Why?  Why not make it a felony to sell to someone who does not have a permit or does not pass a background check?  Why should you not have to prove you can own a gun before you buy it?
 1. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html)

How would this be enforceable? I mean, with a car for instance, if you want to drive it for any length of time, you need to register it, or face the wrath of the law when you get pulled over for not having plates, which would certainly happen eventually, if not immediately. But with a gun, not so much. ESPECIALLY if the gun in question was bought with the purpose of criminal intent.

Not that I disagree. I'm all for background checks and eliminating the loophole, but it only keeps the honest people honest.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on August 30, 2013, 03:25:16 PM
^^^That's the case with any law, isn't it? Doesn't mean we should not have the laws. Laws and rules show what the parameters of acceptable behavior in a society are.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on August 30, 2013, 03:47:21 PM
^^^That's the case with any law, isn't it? Doesn't mean we should not have the laws. Laws and rules show what the parameters of acceptable behavior in a society are.

Absolutely. But, I think, implying that the murder rate in Chicago would go down if Indiana had better gun laws isn't addressing the real problem. The gangs of inner city Chicago aren't buying guns in another state through a loophole. Whatever means they're using to obtain guns are already illegal.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on August 31, 2013, 08:53:29 AM
How would this be enforceable?

First off, no law is perfect.  You will be able to point to a hole in whatever I propose, which will in some way, large or small, provide room for bad people to do bad things.  That does not mean we should not have better rules.  We have laws against murder, yet people get murdered anyway.  That does not mean we should not have laws against murder. 

That said, I think there are a lot things that could be done.  I have a theory that there are more or less law abiding citizens doing bad things simply because there is no requirement for them to do otherwise.  I am talking about the sellers of  guns without any kind of check on who they are selling them to.  I think there are occasions where people are selling guns and don't want to know who is buying them or what for. 

Quote
Gun dealers in these states also have little incentive to care who they sell to, since the law likely won't punish them -- South Carolina has no penalties for straw purchases, and North Carolina, has no penalties for buying guns with false information.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-tough-gun-laws-weakened-states-article-1.1431333

So, my first step would be to put some responsibility back on the sellers.  All of them, not just licensed dealers.  You could require background checks on all gun transfers.  Not doing so would be a felony. You could require the transfer of ownership off any gun to be through a registered firearms dealer.  To do otherwise would be a felony. 

As an additional penalty, you could revoke gun ownership rights for people who break that law.  In fact, I'd make that a blanket rule.  We do that for drunk drivers.  Drive drunk, you lose your license.  Break a gun law, lose all your guns.

Not reporting stolen guns within 48 hours off discovering they were stolen would be a felony. 

I think in the end though, there has to be a gun registry, just like there is for cars, if you really want to keep guns away from criminals. That way you can track back who owned what gun and figure out who is culpable for arming criminals.

Quote
I'm all for background checks and eliminating the loophole, but it only keeps the honest people honest.

And the murder laws are only obeyed by people who don't murder.

The gangs of inner city Chicago aren't buying guns in another state through a loophole.

Are you sure?  Most of the guns used by criminals in NYC are procured out of state.

Quote
The federal government's recent analysis shows that while 420 of the illegal guns recovered in the city had originally been sold within New York State - accounting for the largest single-state total - a majority of the guns had been sold in other states, like Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/nyt_022808.shtml

Quote
Two weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg stood in City Hall and announced an astonishing statistic - some 90 percent of guns used in crimes in New York City come from out-of-state. Today, we saw the sad reality of that frightening statistic.

Thanks to the extraordinary work of our dedicated law enforcement professionals, more than 250 illegal firearms - including handguns, a fully automatic machine gun, and high capacity assault weapons - were taken off the streets, the largest seizure of illegal guns in city history.

Tellingly, more than half of those guns were funneled from North Carolina, with the rest from South Carolina - two states with weak gun laws compared to ours. In those states, unlike New York, gun owners who lose their weapons or claim that they were stolen are not required to report the loss to the police.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-tough-gun-laws-weakened-states-article-1.1431333

Quote
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced 8,793 guns seized in New York in 2011 and found that just 1,595 were bought in the state.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_thugs_guns_flood_in_from_all_jQBgtK1Kjv0EGOTRksDgEJ



Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 02, 2013, 01:20:33 PM
belated gunfail 33
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/01/1233697/-GunFAIL-XXXIII

the two best from it:

a man named jehova is involved in a home robbery.
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130827/NEWS/130829797

Two LA sheriff's deputies have a shootout at a campground.  Responsible gun owners indeed.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sheriff-shooting-20130827,0,303511.story

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 05, 2013, 11:04:18 AM
I think in the end though, there has to be a gun registry, just like there is for cars, if you really want to keep guns away from criminals. That way you can track back who owned what gun and figure out who is culpable for arming criminals.

Sure, that's plausible, in theory. In practical terms though, there are going to be many, many unaccounted for guns that are already in circulation. But you already knew that.

Quote
The gangs of inner city Chicago aren't buying guns in another state through a loophole.

Are you sure?  Most of the guns used by criminals in NYC are procured out of state.

Oh, I didn't doubt they were coming in from out of state, I'm just saying that the gang memebers aren't crossing state lines to go to gun shows to procure arms. They are getting them from gun runners, illegally.

But, let's hope that a federal law passes that eliminates these loopholes and requires licensing and background checks, and it correlates to a drastic reduction in gang violence by gun and suicide in general. I'd be the first to applaud.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 05, 2013, 01:18:28 PM
But you already knew that.

yep.


Oh, I didn't doubt they were coming in from out of state, I'm just saying that the gang memebers aren't crossing state lines to go to gun shows to procure arms. They are getting them from gun runners, illegally.

Someone is getting around the glaring loophole in the law. What does it matter who?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 05, 2013, 01:33:31 PM
Oh, I didn't doubt they were coming in from out of state, I'm just saying that the gang memebers aren't crossing state lines to go to gun shows to procure arms. They are getting them from gun runners, illegally.

Someone is getting around the glaring loophole in the law. What does it matter who?

I'm not convinced that the gangbanger's guns in NY and Chicago are being bought through the loophole is all. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. And, if they are, then see my last paragraph above.

If they're not, then they'd still be coming into those cities and any new laws won't make a difference, except to the law abiding, which I guess was my not-clearly-addressed point all along.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 05, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
jesus fucking christ.

really? 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 05, 2013, 03:10:25 PM
jesus fucking christ.

really?

Which part?

The part about maybe you're right, and I hope you are?

Or the part about that I'm skeptical that the closure of the loopholes will reduce the gangbanger's access to guns?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 05, 2013, 05:21:44 PM
Don't know where this happened but I heard today that a SWAT officer was shot by a 6 or 7 year old at a school program where the officer was talking about safety.  The kid walked up to him and somehow fired the gun in his holster.  You have to watch out for those little ones.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 05, 2013, 05:37:50 PM
Didn't those SWAT officers ever watch Star Trek? Captain Kirk always ordered phasers on stun.[1]

Sheesh, lots more guns around equals more people getting shot for stupid reasons. Training does not seem to make much difference, because the trained people are even more likely to have lots of guns around the untrained people. That's why military bases--where the most trained gun users hang out-- keep the guns and ammo under lock and key except during training and maneuvers.  :P
 1. Unfortunately, too many people seem to get their info about guns from movies, tv and video games. About as accurate as getting your sex ed from those sources.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 05, 2013, 07:14:38 PM
This may be the wrong thread, because this story isn't a gun fail, it is a gun success. Seems a fellow in Florida, just because he felt he had to, shot and killed three neighbors while they were having a BBQ because he felt they were going to kill him someday. And he is essentially using the "stand your ground" law as his defense.

http://boingboing.net/2013/09/05/guy-who-preemptively-shot-his.html (http://boingboing.net/2013/09/05/guy-who-preemptively-shot-his.html)

I think it's wonderful. We should all, you know, be able to shoot anyone that we think might want to shoot us some day. I'm gonna start a petition or something. If people won't sign it, I'll shoot them because their refusal to sign must mean they want to hurt me.

I'm so brilliant.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 05, 2013, 07:43:00 PM
I think it's wonderful. We should all, you know, be able to shoot anyone that we think might want to shoot us some day. I'm gonna start a petition or something. If people won't sign it, I'll shoot them because their refusal to sign must mean they want to hurt me.

I'm so brilliant.


Maybe we should be able to shoot blacks because they are most likely the ones to possess and use firearms:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6227a1.htm

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m6227a1f3.gif)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 05, 2013, 08:03:32 PM
^^^From the looks of the chart, it appears that someone already shot half of them. How else could the haters explain the drop in gun ownership amongst that particular minority?

I'm pretty sure that if I were subject to ongoing racial harassment, I'd own a gun too. That I don't need one is a luxury I probably don't appreciate enough.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 05, 2013, 08:13:04 PM
Yes, but isn't a black man an imminent threat to my person?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 05, 2013, 08:21:29 PM
^^^ Well, if you were the sort to treat him like shit, he might be.

I of course assume that you are not.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 05, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
No, I only treat people like shit after they have treated me that way a number of times. Like a willow, I will bend.


This idea of "imminent threat" is a bit too loose for my sensibilities.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 06, 2013, 07:14:53 AM
Which part?

and any new laws won't make a difference, except to the law abiding,
.

If you are going to just give me the "only criminals break the laws" bullshit over and over, then get out of the conversation.  I don't have the time or energy to respond to that again particularly if you aren't going to make an effort to get it.   
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 06, 2013, 07:21:13 AM
Don't know where this happened but I heard today that a SWAT officer was shot by a 6 or 7 year old at a school program where the officer was talking about safety.  The kid walked up to him and somehow fired the gun in his holster.  You have to watch out for those little ones.

that was one that was mentioned in gunfail 33

http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_de9f9313-fdcc-50d8-8232-4bf7d6901b26.html

apparently the guns that SWAT team uses don't have safeties.  The police captain was quoted as saying "There is nothing we could have done differently.”  Except, you know, maybe not carry a loaded gun that has no safety around kids?  Imbicile. 


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 06, 2013, 07:42:50 AM
Quote
Gun dealers in these states also have little incentive to care who they sell to, since the law likely won't punish them -- South Carolina has no penalties for straw purchases, and North Carolina, has no penalties for buying guns with false information.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-tough-gun-laws-weakened-states-article-1.1431333

The implication from the above quote is that it is somehow not illegal to buy guns with false information or make straw purchases in SC and NC.  Using false information to buy firearms and making straw purchases are both illegal under federal law.  What would the state law say that the federal law doesn't say? 

There is an article regarding the breakup of a gun ring in NY, in which the guns were bought in NC and SC.  The perps were arrested for violating laws involving both the illegal purchasing and illegal sales of guns.  It is interesting to note that the sellers of the guns are being indicted as well. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/largest-seizure-illegal-guns-announced-article-1.1430629

To imply that it is ok to use false information or to make straw purchases in any state, just because that state does not have a law duplicating a federal law, is ludicrous. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on September 06, 2013, 07:59:25 AM
apparently the guns that SWAT team uses don't have safeties.  The police captain was quoted as saying "There is nothing we could have done differently.”

Which is yet another demonstration of how little firearms training law enforcement officers receive.

Like most law enforcement agencies in the United States, this particular SWAT team uses Glocks.  Glocks have three safeties: a trigger safety, a firing pin safety, and a drop safety.  The Glock is, in fact, one of the safest pistols in the world, but no firearm's safety features are going to function properly if the most important safety of all -- the one between your ears -- is not properly engaged.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 06, 2013, 08:00:09 AM
Which part?

and any new laws won't make a difference, except to the law abiding,
.

If you are going to just give me the "only criminals break the laws" bullshit over and over, then get out of the conversation.

If, then? Seems I've heard that before.

If they're not, then they'd still be coming into those cities and any new laws won't make a difference, except to the law abiding, which I guess was my not-clearly-addressed point all along.

Get over yourself.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 06, 2013, 08:43:54 AM
Get over yourself.

Get out of my thread.  Your answers are lazy, flippant and useless.  You have added nothing of value.

"Criminals are going to break laws!"  Then I guess there is no reason to have any laws.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 06, 2013, 08:53:23 AM
Get out of my thread.

You betcha.

Quote
Your answers are lazy, flippant and useless.  You have added nothing of value.
 

Says you.

Quote
"Criminals are going to break laws!"  Then I guess there is no reason to have any laws.

Yeah, that's what I said. &)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 06, 2013, 09:07:07 AM
To imply that it is ok to use false information or to make straw purchases in any state, just because that state does not have a law duplicating a federal law, is ludicrous. 

Then you tell me why people bothered to go all the way from NY to the Carolinas for guns and not just buy them in NY.  Why not make a straw purchases in NY state and save on gas and time?  Did they just want to take the scenic route?  If the law is the law is the law, why was it worth their effort to get guns 700 miles away?

Could it be that the laws were more lax in the Carolinas?  Could it be something about NY state laws that made it impossible for them to get the guns?

You guys keep arguing that laws won't do anything.  Yet, we see in NY they are.  If they weren't, people would not be driving to the deep south to acquire guns.  If every state had the same laws as NY, it would be much harder for them to even find a gun.

You guys say you want to keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys.  But your actions tell me you don't actually care. You are not willing to do anything to ensure it.  You just shrug your shoulders and bitch about people who are putting in the effort.  You act as if the occasional mass shooting and gang warfare is just the price of freedom. 



Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 06, 2013, 10:31:01 PM

Then you tell me why people bothered to go all the way from NY to the Carolinas for guns and not just buy them in NY.  Why not make a straw purchases in NY state and save on gas and time?  Did they just want to take the scenic route?  If the law is the law is the law, why was it worth their effort to get guns 700 miles away?

Could it be that the laws were more lax in the Carolinas?  Could it be something about NY state laws that made it impossible for them to get the guns?

The people who were caught were from NC and SC.  They didn't go from NY to do anything, except return home to their accomplices and familiar territory.

Quote
You guys keep arguing that laws won't do anything.  Yet, we see in NY they are.  If they weren't, people would not be driving to the deep south to acquire guns.  If every state had the same laws as NY, it would be much harder for them to even find a gun.

The law changed in NY in March 2013 to require a background check for all private long gun sales in NY.  The implication is that private sales of shotguns and rifles before that date were not subject to background checks - the same as under federal law in most states between two residents of the same state.  (I'll have to check on prior law and make sure the implication is correct.)

Quote
You guys say you want to keep the guns out of the hands of bad guys.  But your actions tell me you don't actually care. You are not willing to do anything to ensure it.  You just shrug your shoulders and bitch about people who are putting in the effort.  You act as if the occasional mass shooting and gang warfare is just the price of freedom.

I told you how I felt about the gang problems in other states, and you told me to stop whining.  I don't give a rat's fuck about the gangs in NY.  You want a cattle rancher in Wyoming, who uses his AR-15 as defense against Wolves and Coyotes, to give up his weapon because some gang-banger in NY City or East LA might use one to shoot up another gang.  If I'm that rancher, I want my AR-15 and as many 30-round magazines as I can carry, with a bazooka and grenades for backup, if there is any chance I'll run into a pack of Wolves on my ride around my fence.

Maybe what I'm arguing for is against the basic freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.  NY City, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etc., are different animals.  Maybe they should have the rights to tighter gun restrictions, including stop and frisk and house-to-house searches for guns.  Maybe you should have to be searched before entering NY State from other states.  That is the freedom you would give up by living in or visiting those puke holes.  It just doesn't equate to most of the rest of the country.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 08, 2013, 12:24:51 PM
Well, this settles it.  We are a nation of nuts.

Iowa has just passed a measure where it permits blind people to purchase and carry firearms in public.  So I guess you had better not sneak up on a blind person.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 08, 2013, 02:07:57 PM
Perhaps it is a matter of equality, but I think we can be assured of another FAIL:

Iowa grants gun permits to the blind (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/)

Quote
Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to people who are legally or completely blind.

...

The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it's a good idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 08, 2013, 04:20:26 PM
Burn After Reading ...

Teen shot and killed in prank gone wrong (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/08/justice/colorado-teen-accidental-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 09, 2013, 10:00:27 AM
yeah yeah, I know I said I'd stay out of your thread, but I thought you'd wanna see this one. I've no words for this.....

http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind-174507640.html (http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind-174507640.html)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on September 09, 2013, 11:37:32 AM
Dante, did you read how many of the comments were supportive of allowing the blind to have gun permits, and/or hostile to those who questioned its wisdom?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 09, 2013, 11:47:04 AM
Dante, did you read how many of the comments were supportive of allowing the blind to have gun permits, and/or hostile to those who questioned its wisdom?

I didn't. I don't think I want to either.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 09, 2013, 02:42:22 PM
Gun rights for the blind will be the next big political issue. Not. Uh, excuse me, but you have to pass a vision test to get a drivers license. Will gun permits for paraplegics be next? Our country deserves to go down in flames and be ruled by the communist Chinese.  :'(
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on September 09, 2013, 02:48:29 PM
Gun rights for the blind will be the next big political issue.

More likely, Iowa will change its laws.  In other states, typically, one of the conditions of getting a license to carry a gun is that you have to demonstrate that you are physically capable of handling it safely and properly.  I don't know much of the history behind Iowa's carry law, but my offhand guess would be simply that nobody thought about it when the new law was passed.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time lawmakers have made a stupid mistake.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 09, 2013, 03:16:12 PM
IIRC there have been other laws in Michigan and Texas allowing blind people to get guns, hunting permits, etc. So it is not the first time. Probably not the last, either. :P
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 10, 2013, 11:56:24 AM
You want a cattle rancher in Wyoming, who uses his AR-15 as defense against Wolves and Coyotes, to give up his weapon because some gang-banger in NY City or East LA might use one to shoot up another gang.

Go ahead and quote where I said that.  Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize.  And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.

One of the fundamental problems I have with the right wing is demonstrated here, by Odin.  They are too lazy or dishonest to use the truth.  I am going to be charitable with Odin, king of misinformation, and assume he is not intentionally saying something he knows is false.  I will charitably assume he's lazy.   

This kind of delusion(?) gets in the way of both sides understanding each other and finding common ground.  If you are a paranoiac who thinks anyone who wants more gun regulation is out to grab your guns, you are going to be unlikely to want to even negotiate with them.  So, naturally he is going to oppose any idea that restricts guns in any way, because, you know, slippery slope.

Get your head out of your ass, Odin.


If I'm that rancher, I want my AR-15 and as many 30-round magazines as I can carry, with a bazooka and grenades for backup, if there is any chance I'll run into a pack of Wolves on my ride around my fence.

That's just ignorant.  Wolves don't actually attack people in North America. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans#North_America
http://www.livingwithwolves.org/AW_question1.html
http://www.hcn.org/issues/315/16084


Maybe what I'm arguing for is against the basic freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights.  NY City, Chicago, Detroit, LA, etc., are different animals.  Maybe they should have the rights to tighter gun restrictions, including stop and frisk and house-to-house searches for guns.  Maybe you should have to be searched before entering NY State from other states.  That is the freedom you would give up by living in or visiting those puke holes.  It just doesn't equate to most of the rest of the country.

You sound like a raving lunatic and an intolerant douche to boot.  Not everyone can or wants to live like you, Grizzly Adams. That does not make the cave you live in a "puke hole".  And while you may think you are most of the rest of the country, you aren't.  You are in the teeny, tiny minority. 
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/03/us-urban-population-what-does-urban-really-mean/1589/
So the issues that affect the vast majority of us matter.  Safety issues that affect millions of people take precedence over matters of convenience for the couple thousands.  Stop being so selfish.


Gun rights for the blind will be the next big political issue. Not. Uh, excuse me, but you have to pass a vision test to get a drivers license.

The argument is owing a gun is a right and the only one that says it "shall not be infringed".[1]  Driving, on the other hand, is not a right.  It is a privilege.  If it were a right, then all the licensing and testing and registration would obviously be unconstitutional because FREEDOM!


 1. which they of course take to mean "shall not be limited in any way, shape or form".
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on September 10, 2013, 12:30:53 PM
In fairness, screwtape, even with 80% or so of Americans living in cities, that's still around 60 million Americans who live in rural areas.  So it isn't exactly a teeny-tiny minority.  And it's also true that you can't simply dismiss that minority's rights.  But at the same time, the rights of the minority don't give them the right to ride roughshod over the rest of the country.

I'd have no problems with a rancher using a semi-auto AR-15 to protect his herds against predators, at least not in the gun usage sense[1].  But gun stuff isn't a one-size-fits-all thing.
 1. Ranching is fairly destructive in the long term, via desertification due to typical ranching methods.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 10, 2013, 03:01:57 PM
In fairness, screwtape, even with 80% or so of Americans living in cities, that's still around 60 million Americans who live in rural areas.  So it isn't exactly a teeny-tiny minority.

There are about 360 million americans, give or take a couple million.  That means about 1/6 live in rural areas.  16.7%  Vs 83%.  That is a teeny-tiny, itsy-bitsy minority.  And even if it's not, it is still not "most of the rest of us" Odin, king of exaggeration, is making them out to be.

And if making some changes that protects 83% of us inconveniences - and notice I said inconvenience, not revoke the rights of - 16.7%, well, thems the berries.

And it's also true that you can't simply dismiss that minority's rights.

I agree.  And I don't believe I ever said their rights should be dismissed.  I'm talking about better regulation.  That is, gun registration, mandatory background checks on any transfer of guns, more rigorous rules for who needs what weapon, etc.

I'm not asking for anything crazy.  I just want to keep guns away from the people who should not have them.  Why is that so difficult?


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 05:22:09 PM
Who was that musician who had over 80 guns? I'm thinking John Popper but I think it's someone else. Who needs, as a citizen, that many guns? And how does one go about regulating a single person owning that many for private use?

I understand the use of collecting guns but still...seems excessive, and doubt those private citizens who are out there and own that many, or more, are just collecting them.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 10, 2013, 09:04:07 PM
In other states, typically, one of the conditions of getting a license to carry a gun is that you have to demonstrate that you are physically capable of handling it safely and properly.  I don't know much of the history behind Iowa's carry law, but my offhand guess would be simply that nobody thought about it when the new law was passed.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time lawmakers have made a stupid mistake.

It seems like the physical requirements for most states are limited only to being warm and vertical.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 10, 2013, 09:12:54 PM
Who was that musician who had over 80 guns?

At first I thought you were talking about Ted Nugent, but I'm sure he has far more than 80.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVecBww1vcE
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 10, 2013, 09:50:52 PM
Who was that musician who had over 80 guns? I'm thinking John Popper but I think it's someone else. Who needs, as a citizen, that many guns? And how does one go about regulating a single person owning that many for private use?

I understand the use of collecting guns but still...seems excessive, and doubt those private citizens who are out there and own that many, or more, are just collecting them.

-Nam

What is it you do think they're doing with them?

It can be a hobby like anything else. One could collect for many and any reason. They can have history, they all shoot a little differently, and they're made for a wide variety of specialized use. The same could be said about anything from cars to shotglasses to DVDs.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 10, 2013, 11:21:10 PM
Who was that musician who had over 80 guns? I'm thinking John Popper but I think it's someone else. Who needs, as a citizen, that many guns? And how does one go about regulating a single person owning that many for private use?

I understand the use of collecting guns but still...seems excessive, and doubt those private citizens who are out there and own that many, or more, are just collecting them.

-Nam

What is it you do think they're doing with them?

It can be a hobby like anything else. One could collect for many and any reason. They can have history, they all shoot a little differently, and they're made for a wide variety of specialized use. The same could be said about anything from cars to shotglasses to DVDs.

What does one need an XM307 ACSW in their collection for? Target practice? Please...

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 11, 2013, 09:10:00 AM
Well, the 2 politicians were successfully recalled in a vote in Colorado for supporting gun control.  That should put the fear of "Thor" into any politician in the future who considers any thing like that.  Think the vote was like 51% to recall / 49% not to.  Says a lot about what we think about each other.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 12, 2013, 07:33:27 AM
Go ahead and quote where I said that.  Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize.  And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.


So, you would not be in favor of a ban on AR-15 style "assault rifles?"

By the way, I live in a suburban area of the eastern US.  My house is on a cul-de-sac, on a quarter-acre lot.  Also, I don't own any weapon that could be called an "assault weapon," except for one high-cap semi-auto pistol.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on September 12, 2013, 07:35:45 AM
That doesn't look like a quote of a previous statement to me.  Anyone else?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 12, 2013, 12:41:14 PM
So, you would not be in favor of a ban on AR-15 style "assault rifles?"

That was not the statement in question (but it is the question you should have asked to begin with).  Quit weaseling.  Post my quote or apologize for putting words in my mouth.  Right now you are only guilty of being lazy.  Keep dodging that fact and you will work yourself into also being guilty of arguing dishonestly.  Admitting being wrong is difficult.  I usually hate to do it.  But after I do, I feel much better.  You will too.

By the way, I live in a suburban area of the eastern US.  My house is on a cul-de-sac, on a quarter-acre lot.

Very nice.  I'm sure it's a lovely puke hole.

You've still avoided the central questions about how to keep guns away from people who should not have them.  You keep proving my point, that you don't actually care about that at all. You should just come right out and say it.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 12, 2013, 12:58:32 PM
Without the cooperation of the military, there is no way any group of civilians armed with the 2nd amendment will be able to overthrow the government. No matter how many handguns and automatic weapons and pressure cooker bombs they have stockpiled. They might get away with  burning up a neighborhood and even terrorizing a city.

But the US government would not even blink. With air support, rocket launchers and a few serious missiles, it would look like the short-lived siege in Les Miserables.

Oh I disagree.   Now if you say they whosale level cities, then you are probably correct.  But I would assume that the government would be trying to play a political game to keep the military on board.  So air strikes would be limited.  What you would have is a slow boil revolution/insurgency.  each powerplant blown up and each telephone office blown up would result in discontent.  The government would blame this on the insurgency (rightly so) but all the while people are talking and military people are talking and it is not a forgone conclusion the outcome of those talks depending on justness of their cause vs propaganda.

All in all I think that an large scale insurgency could be effective as long as they can hold out for long enough for the military to finally say no more.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 12, 2013, 01:36:48 PM
But I would assume that the government

Who exactly is "the government"?

All in all I think that an large scale insurgency could be effective as long as they can hold out for long enough for the military to finally say no more.

But you cannot have a large scale insurgency.  For that you need leaders, strategy, planning, and communication.  Enter the NSA. 

The best you can hope for is an IRA style insurgency of about 200-300 people who mostly know each other.  It will be no revolution.  It will be terrorism.  That may have some local support, but it will not have the widespread kind of support needed to change government.  Most of us will not want to have to worry about gunnuts setting off bombs in our restaurants.

This thread is expressly not for that debate, however.  That is done here: 
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24137.msg543037.html#msg543037

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 12, 2013, 01:51:14 PM
Hold on to your hats, folks.  You are about to see an unprecedented level of honesty that may never have been witnessed on this forum before!

Odin, pay close attention.  This is what integrity looks like.

I hereby retract this statement:
Go ahead and quote where I said that.  Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize.  And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.

I did at one point on this forum say I would ban AR-15s, though in not so many words.  It was a totally different thread, more than 6 months ago:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24137.msg543027.html#msg543027

Quote
limit gun ownership to bolt action long rifles(for hunting), shotguns (with limitations), and revolver type handguns.

So, there it is.  I did say it. 

Thank me, Odin, king of weasels, for doing your work for you.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 12, 2013, 09:57:54 PM
screwtape,

I'm not so lazy or intellectually dishonest.  I am really busy with work right now, and have little time for this argument.  If I need to apologize for being correct in assessing your attitude toward "assault weapons," then I'm sorry.  But, I am right by default.  I didn't need to find your quote.  Your attitude in this discussion told me you would be for the ban.  Because Detroit has a gang problem, a rancher in Wyoming shouldn't have a high-cap semi-auto rifle to defend his property.  (Wolves might not kill many people, but they do attack cattle.)

Because Chicago has a gang problem, I shouldn't have my Sig Sauer P226 high-cap 9mm pistol in North Carolina.  Because some nut might go off and kill some folks, I shouldn't have a home defense pump shotgun with a telescoping stock.

There are numerous laws on the books designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.  Right now, in many states, it is legal to sell a long gun to a fellow resident, as long as you have no reason to believe he or she should not be allowed by law to own the gun.  That places a heavy burden on the seller, or adjudicates the seller, depending on how you look at it.  Maybe we should have laws that say all gun transfers have to go through FFLs, who would perform background checks.  That would stop knuckleheads who don't know any better from trying to buy a gun they are not allowed to own.  It would not stop criminals from buying guns illegally. 

All the guns sold into NY in the case I referred to were purchased illegally, based on laws on the books right now.  Straw purchases are illegal in every state, because they are illegal under federal law.  And, if you think you can trust FFLs to do the background checks - the gun store operators in the case were also illegally selling guns to people they knew were straw buyers.

I think I should go back to god-bashing, and let you and the others on your side of this issue have this thread.  The gun fails you link to would be hilarious if they weren't so sad.  Guns are very dangerous things.  However, in the right hands, they are incredible weapons.

Which leads me to say:  I am a member of a shooting club, which has existed since 1965.  In all those years, there has not been one single serious accident on the grounds.  A couple of trap houses have been shot.  But since they are "downrange" and the guns were pointed and discharged "downrange," no real damage was done.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Spit on September 12, 2013, 10:15:44 PM
Guns! Same as a hammer or a screwdriver. If you think any different then you're a moron. Hi.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 13, 2013, 02:17:08 AM
Guns! Same as a hammer or a screwdriver. If you think any different then you're a moron. Hi.

A person can't throw a hammer or an ax a mile away and kill you.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 13, 2013, 07:39:08 AM
Guns! Same as a hammer or a screwdriver. If you think any different then you're a moron. Hi.

A person can't throw a hammer or an ax a mile away and kill you.

-Nam
NO, but Thor can.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 13, 2013, 07:39:59 AM
I'm not so lazy or intellectually dishonest.  I am really busy with work right now, and have little time for this argument.

It may be true you are busy and don't have time, but you are dishonest.  One of the things I resent most in this forum is when someone puts words in my mouth.  I hate it not just because it is frustrating and obnoxious, but I find it extremely direspectful. 

The person who does that is saying they know things about me without evidence.  You may have had your suspicions, you may have had feelings.  But you attributed motives to me that were based solely on your emotions and biases.  That is neither rational nor fair.  And it is dishonest.


But, I am right by default.  I didn't need to find your quote.  Your attitude in this discussion told me you would be for the ban.

You are typical of the fringe NRA paranoiacs.  Because I want to do a couple things you disagree with, I must therefore be the enemy of your freedom in every single way.  I must be the Boogie Man who wants to take away all guns, all rights, all freedoms indiscriminently.  It is a strictly emotional response.

I'm surprised you didn't also accuse me of being a stalinist, directly related to Hitler.

Because Detroit has a gang problem, a rancher in Wyoming shouldn't have a high-cap semi-auto rifle to defend his property.  (Wolves might not kill many people, but they do attack cattle.)

Because Chicago has a gang problem, I shouldn't have my Sig Sauer P226 high-cap 9mm pistol in North Carolina.  Because some nut might go off and kill some folks, I shouldn't have a home defense pump shotgun with a telescoping stock.

Well, I didn't actually say any of that in this thread, and if I hadn't dug up a 9 month old quote you would have had no actual basis to say any of that.  The fact is, I don't feel that way at all. I've said that more times than I care to look up.  Though, I probably should look it up, since I know you won't.  Not that that would do any good.  Because you know how I feel, regardless of what I might actually say. Right?

There are numerous laws on the books ...  It would not stop criminals from buying guns illegally. 

That is a regurgitation of what you've already said.  It addresses none of my points and adds nothing to the conversation.  You are spinning your wheels.

All the guns sold into NY...were straw buyers.

ditto this.

I think I should go back to god-bashing, and let you and the others on your side of this issue have this thread.

I think you should take your own advice.  You have shown youself to be so heavily invested in this on an emotional level that you cannot think clearly or outside your biases.  You have not thus far been able to form a better argument than "criminals will always break laws".

The gun fails you link to would be hilarious if they weren't so sad.  Guns are very dangerous things.  However, in the right hands, they are incredible weapons.

Hey, finally, a couple things we totally agree on.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 13, 2013, 05:07:08 PM
Guns! Same as a hammer or a screwdriver. If you think any different then you're a moron. Hi.

A person can't throw a hammer or an ax a mile away and kill you.

-Nam
NO, but Thor can.

Hammers are too heavy for Thor.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 13, 2013, 05:27:08 PM
Incredible weapons are also very dangerous things. The main point of a weapon is to, well, be a weapon. And I think that people should not have them unless they are, at the bare minimum, properly trained in how to use them. Most people today, I am afraid, get their ideas about guns from movies and video games. The cowboy fantasy, the superhero fantasy, the urban warrior fantasy, the gangsta fantasy crash into the gun fail reality all too often.

It makes a lot of people really upset to hear this, but the 2nd amendment is a weird anachronism, like the part about quartering soldiers in our homes. Most of the modern industrialized world gets along just fine without US style "gun rights". When it was written, the 2nd amendment made sense to allow fairly unrestricted access to firearms. The US did not have any police force, national guard or even a permanent standing army. People could be expected to be called up to form a militia, and would need their weapons at the ready.[1]

In 2013 guns are way more powerful than the single shot firearms of the 1700's. We are not finishing up a war of independence, and we don't generally live on isolated farms or out in the woods. Few of us need to hunt our own food, and we are not going to be called up at a moment's notice to defend our homesteads against attack. We have a military and organized police forces nowadays. And many of us live in pretty crowded suburbs and cities.

If I was queen of the universe, I would first rewrite the 2nd amendment so that it makes sense in the 21st century. I would definitely put limits on the number and type of guns people could own, and people would have to explain why they need a particular weapon before they can get it.  It would have to be something more than "I just want to have lots of them around in case the government gets out of control" or some other crazy-a$$ sh!t. If you are a hunter or live in an isolated area, you can make a case for having a shotgun or whatever.

I would next require that everyone pass an exam covering gun safety and proper use in order to legally own a gun. Licensing and registering would also be a part of that. It could be just like drivers ed in schools--you may never want to own one but you could take the class and become knowledgeable about them.

Don't anyone get winged out. If you need to have guns around to feel safe, not to worry. None of what I say here will ever happen, because I will never be queen of the world..... :'(
 1. I could get into the part about the need to have guns to "pacify and secure the frontier" ie kill off the native inhabitants so their land could be systematically stolen, but that's another topic.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 16, 2013, 12:39:39 AM
Incredible weapons are also very dangerous things. The main point of a weapon is to, well, be a weapon. And I think that people should not have them unless they are, at the bare minimum, properly trained in how to use them. Most people today, I am afraid, get their ideas about guns from movies and video games. The cowboy fantasy, the superhero fantasy, the urban warrior fantasy, the gangsta fantasy crash into the gun fail reality all too often.

It makes a lot of people really upset to hear this, but the 2nd amendment is a weird anachronism, like the part about quartering soldiers in our homes. Most of the modern industrialized world gets along just fine without US style "gun rights". When it was written, the 2nd amendment made sense to allow fairly unrestricted access to firearms. The US did not have any police force, national guard or even a permanent standing army. People could be expected to be called up to form a militia, and would need their weapons at the ready.[1]


In 2013 guns are way more powerful than the single shot firearms of the 1700's. We are not finishing up a war of independence, and we don't generally live on isolated farms or out in the woods. Few of us need to hunt our own food, and we are not going to be called up at a moment's notice to defend our homesteads against attack. We have a military and organized police forces nowadays. And many of us live in pretty crowded suburbs and cities.

If I was queen of the universe, I would first rewrite the 2nd amendment so that it makes sense in the 21st century. I would definitely put limits on the number and type of guns people could own, and people would have to explain why they need a particular weapon before they can get it.  It would have to be something more than "I just want to have lots of them around in case the government gets out of control" or some other crazy-a$$ sh!t. If you are a hunter or live in an isolated area, you can make a case for having a shotgun or whatever.

I would next require that everyone pass an exam covering gun safety and proper use in order to legally own a gun. Licensing and registering would also be a part of that. It could be just like drivers ed in schools--you may never want to own one but you could take the class and become knowledgeable about them.

Don't anyone get winged out. If you need to have guns around to feel safe, not to worry. None of what I say here will ever happen, because I will never be queen of the world..... :'(
 1. I could get into the part about the need to have guns to "pacify and secure the frontier" ie kill off the native inhabitants so their land could be systematically stolen, but that's another topic.


Actually the government had the most advanced weapons available.  The single shot muskets and rifles of the time were the state of the art.  The people could own weaponry equal to that of the government.   

I don't propose this but just sayin.

I am not against a basic gun safety course.   It should be taught in kindergarten and every couple of years after should be more advanced courses throughtout your primary school years.   this way when a kid comes across a gun or sees one being played with at a party they could know to vacate the premises.

as for the limit on the number of weapons???  what do you hope to accomplish with such a restriction.   I can carry a few weapons at one time but my 7 or 8 guns pose no more risk than my 1 or 2 guns.  They sit idle in my safe even when I go out shooting I usually don't bring but a few out.

everyone who bashes guns really avoids the topic of my right to defend myself.   I can cite cases where limited magazines would have reduced survivability of the innocent in  encouters with would be criminals.  Large capacity magazines are rarely used in the comission of a crime.  I have read that the average number of shots fired by criminals is typically between 2 and 5 shots.   Of course notable exeptions would be the movie theater shooting and elementary shooting. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on September 16, 2013, 07:35:58 AM
Your right to defend yourself...by shooting fleeing crime suspects?  That's what you were defending earlier.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on September 16, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
Actually the government had the most advanced weapons available.  The single shot muskets and rifles of the time were the state of the art.  The people could own weaponry equal to that of the government.
Non sequitur and thus fairly irrelevant.  Not only that, but as the Revolutionary War proved over and over again, a band of militia could not ever stand up to professionally-trained soldiers.  So saying that people had equivalent weapons to the government (which was not true, by the way, I don't think a single American owned a cannon, for example) is pretty meaningless.

Quote from: epidemic
I don't propose this but just sayin.
Good, because you would be insane to suggest that individual citizens should have the right to bear nuclear weapons, to pick one example of a weapon the government has and individual citizens don't.

Quote from: epidemic
I am not against a basic gun safety course.   It should be taught in kindergarten and every couple of years after should be more advanced courses throughtout your primary school years.   this way when a kid comes across a gun or sees one being played with at a party they could know to vacate the premises.
I don't think anyone with a sufficient number of functioning brain cells would be against gun safety classes.  The problem is the people who don't take the classes seriously, because they don't respect their weapons.

Quote from: epidemic
as for the limit on the number of weapons???  what do you hope to accomplish with such a restriction.   I can carry a few weapons at one time but my 7 or 8 guns pose no more risk than my 1 or 2 guns.  They sit idle in my safe even when I go out shooting I usually don't bring but a few out.
I don't think she was talking about an individual gun owner having a half-dozen guns or so.  I think she was talking about someone stockpiling dozens or hundreds of guns.

Quote from: epidemic
everyone who bashes guns really avoids the topic of my right to defend myself.   I can cite cases where limited magazines would have reduced survivability of the innocent in  encouters with would be criminals.  Large capacity magazines are rarely used in the comission of a crime.  I have read that the average number of shots fired by criminals is typically between 2 and 5 shots.   Of course notable exeptions would be the movie theater shooting and elementary shooting.
The right to defend yourself is not absolute.  It is in no way self-defense to shoot a fleeing man in the back, for example.

By all means, go ahead and cite those cases where limited magazines would have reduced survivability against criminals.  I find it more than a little doubtful, personally, since there aren't that many cases nowadays where individual citizens get into extended firefights with criminals.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 16, 2013, 03:07:15 PM
As I said before, a lot of people get their ideas about guns, crime, violence and what it means to "defend themselves" from movies. The good guy is a great shot, never hesitates, always knows exactly where and how many bad guys there are, and of course, the music changes when the bad guys show up so everyone knows exactly who they are. Movie death is clean-- no brains and guts splatter on the good guy. And the good guy is totally cool about shooting people. He never freaks out, passes out or vomits.  He never makes a mistake and shoots the wrong person. And if the good guy does get shot, it is in the shoulder or arm, never the brain or spine so he is disabled for the rest of his life.

In real life, none of that is the case. You are coming home from work after dark and a man approaches you and demands your wallet. Where is your gun? If it is not loaded and in your hand already, you have zero chance of "defending yourself" with it. If you reach for your wallet and come out with a gun instead, you have just increased your chance of getting killed as well as robbed, because you don't know if he has a friend hidden nearby waiting.

You are leaving the ATM with your cash and a group of thugs surrounds you and demands your money. Same question: where is your gun? If you can get it out, how many of them can you shoot before they take your weapon away and kill or disable you with it? You would have to shoot first--before the people get close to you, and ask questions--like, were they really going to demand money, later.

As a woman, maybe I should carry a gun to protect myself from rapists. I would need to have my gun in my hand, ready to fire at a moment's notice, because by the time a man has grabbed me, it's too late. Any man who makes me nervous is fair game. Right?

As for the possibility of "taking out" a crazy gunman in a public place, like a movie theater, school, mall, or Naval base (!) again the reality is very different from the movies. Nobody really knows what is going on. People are running around and screaming. Broken glass is flying around, maybe there are wounded people bleeding in front of you. There is a lot of noise and a lot of smoke, maybe it is dark so you can't see clearly or hear exactly where the shots are coming from.

In all the confusion, you see a guy running by with a gun in his hand. Do you shoot at him? Maybe it's the shooter, or it could be an undercover cop or plainclothes security person, or even another private citizen trying to be a hero just like you. Bullets ricochet and go everywhere. Chances are good that more shooters will create even more chaos and death.

My grandfather, a mean, tough old bird, kept a loaded shotgun behind the front door of his home. I am not advocating this, because he was crazy paranoid, but I want to point out that he had only one gun. He never to my knowledge used it for anything other than hunting, and he did not feel the need to have lots of weapons to feel safe. I have another relative who is an NRA member. He collects guns. I don't know how many he has, but he never feels safe enough.

How does having more guns (say, more than 10 handguns and rifles) increase a person's ability to defend themselves against crime? Are you going to walk around 24-7 with all those guns? Are you going to have them loaded and hidden in various easily reached locations throughout your home? Does this seem like a safe thing to do?

The way for us to be safer is to make our society safer. There are many countries where people don't own guns and crime rates are very low.  What they do have: well trained and well paid police, health care for everyone, expanded social services-- especially for the military, drug counseling,  mental health care, good schools, jail for violent criminals and alternative programs for non-violent crime. 

In the US we seem to have decided to let everyone arm to the teeth and hope for the best. &)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 16, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
Another shooting today at a US Navy Yard in DC.  The NRA is silent, as they always are for a few days, then they will come out and say "we need to arm teachers and this would not have happened at the navy yard".
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 16, 2013, 03:26:24 PM
Another shooting today at a US Navy Yard in DC.  The NRA is silent, as they always are for a few days, then they will come out and say "we need to arm teachers and this would not have happened at the navy yard".

Yep. More guns is always the answer. :(
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 16, 2013, 03:47:47 PM
Another shooting today at a US Navy Yard in DC.  The NRA is silent, as they always are for a few days, then they will come out and say ...

"...quit trying to politicize this issue!  That's not fair!" 

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 16, 2013, 08:04:13 PM
Another shooting today at a US Navy Yard in DC.  The NRA is silent, as they always are for a few days, then they will come out and say "we need to arm teachers and this would not have happened at the navy yard".

The custodians and clerks at the Navy Yard should be armed with weapons because, well, you never know ...


Oh, wait a minute. Aren't there people at the Navy Yard that are armed? Hmmmm.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 16, 2013, 09:25:20 PM
Yes, they are armed.  Two cops were shot.  Guards have guns.  But the right wing press is saying it was a gun free zone.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 17, 2013, 05:38:12 AM
Maybe there should be stations every 200 feet that contain automatic weapons with a sign that says "break glass in case of emergency".

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 07:52:02 AM
In real life, none of that is the case. You are coming home from work after dark and a man approaches you and demands your wallet. Where is your gun? If it is not loaded and in your hand already, you have zero chance of "defending yourself" with it. If you reach for your wallet and come out with a gun instead, you have just increased your chance of getting killed as well as robbed, because you don't know if he has a friend hidden nearby waiting.

Like or dislike the outcome of zimmerman case.  It does prove your statement as false.  However Zimmerman and Martin ended up on the ground.  It does prove your zero chance argument is false.  Zimmerman was able to take a life threatening situation and turn it around from the ground.

Lets say you comply with the robber and they begin to beat you, you have zero chance to defend yourself at this point.  A gun is not a perfect tool to defend yourself but it is better than nothing and better than most alternatives.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 17, 2013, 07:54:49 AM
^nonsense reply.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 07:57:29 AM
Maybe there should be stations every 200 feet that contain automatic weapons with a sign that says "break glass in case of emergency".

cool idea, but I think it may be a little short sighted. 

considering that most people are generally good.  that would quickly result in overwhelming odds against any would be assailant.

But conversely it would create a situation that made it difficult to identify the bad guy. 

I think the guns should be in every room.  This would give the people bunkered down in rooms the ability to defend themselves but I would suggest that no one leave the rooms with them.  this way all people in the room knows the person with the gun is in  a defensive role.  :)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 08:00:24 AM
^nonsense reply.

-Nam

Factual reply dispelling a false claim.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 17, 2013, 08:06:21 AM
Maybe there should be stations every 200 feet that contain automatic weapons with a sign that says "break glass in case of emergency".

cool idea, but I think it may be a little short sighted. 

considering that most people are generally good.  that would quickly result in overwhelming odds against any would be assailant.

But conversely it would create a situation that made it difficult to identify the bad guy. 

I think the guns should be in every room.  This would give the people bunkered down in rooms the ability to defend themselves but I would suggest that no one leave the rooms with them.  this way all people in the room knows the person with the gun is in  a defensive role.  :)
Yeah, more guns for the swat team to try to figure out.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 17, 2013, 08:07:43 AM
It was reported this morning that the guy had some mental issues and heard voices in his head.  So we know he had a direct line to God like Pat Robertson and others.  I'm just glad his right to have a gun was protected.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on September 17, 2013, 08:31:14 AM
Like or dislike the outcome of zimmerman case.  It does prove your statement as false.  However Zimmerman and Martin ended up on the ground.  It does prove your zero chance argument is false.  Zimmerman was able to take a life threatening situation and turn it around from the ground.

Lets say you comply with the robber and they begin to beat you, you have zero chance to defend yourself at this point.  A gun is not a perfect tool to defend yourself but it is better than nothing and better than most alternatives.
Didn't you just say that Zimmerman was able to turn the situation around from the ground?  He was knocked down and hit several times while on the ground; you could say that Martin had begun to beat him.  You might want to avoid contradicting yourself so obviously, it does nothing for your argument and makes your bias even more clear.

While it's true that NGFM exaggerated her statement a bit, if you had bothered to actually read her post rather than nitpicking that exaggeration, you might have realized that she was overall correct.  Instead, you fixated on her "false claim" and then managed to contradict yourself in your very next paragraph.  I think you're simply irrational about the use of firearms at this point - you were totally unable to recognize that Chronos was being facetious and acted as if he was making a serious suggestion, then made an even more ridiculous suggestion.

Having guns in every room?  Are you insane?  That would make it easier for someone with a grudge, or who lost their antidepressant meds, or who just got in a huge argument, or other people who probably shouldn't have easy access to guns to use them to do something they shouldn't.  I mean, these guns would have to be easily accessible - there would be no point in having them in each room if they were locked up securely, ammunition stored separately - and that means the person would have no difficulties getting their hands on a gun.  It would make violent crime more likely, not less.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 17, 2013, 08:59:53 AM
Sorry, fellow folks in America. Guns will be a problem for as long as we pretend we are free because we, as a country, have no viable mechanism, political or otherwise, to solve the problem.

Guns are one of the ways more people than necessary die. They are particularly odious to some of us (me included) and worshipped by others. This is not an easy chasm to bridge. Especially when most gun supporters aren't the least bit interested in any sort of compromise.

So like other pollutions that we as a society shrug our shoulders at, cafeteria's littered with dead bodies shall continue littering our country. And worse yet, minds that can justify such deaths as an acceptable byproduct of freedom will also continue to litter the country.

Someone needs to invent a solar powered filter that you can pour people into and have them come out both intelligent and compassionate on the other end. Until we can sustain a society capable of caring for more than the self, we are dead meat. Too often literally.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on September 17, 2013, 09:51:35 AM
ParkingPlaces is right.  As long as we value that pesky thing called "freedom", there will be gun deaths in the USA.

Let's put this in perspective, though.  Somewhat in excess of 30,000 people die every year due to motor vehicle accidents, roughly the same number as who die from firearms; two-thirds of firearm deaths are suicides.  So as long as we allow people the freedom to own and drive cars, a lot of people will die.  And most of them will not be the person actually driving the car responsible for the accident, unlike firearm deaths.

And to put it even more in perspective, there are over 440,000 tobacco-related deaths per year in the USA.  Of those, nearly 50,000 are from secondhand smoke exposure - meaning people who don't smoke cigarettes.  The rest are invariably the person actually smoking the cigarettes.

I'm certainly not trying to cheapen the deaths of those people.  Nor am I trying to suggest that dealing with firearm violence isn't important.  But from a rational perspective, the benefits of allowing people the freedoms to do things that are dangerous, like owning guns, driving cars, and smoking, outweigh the detriments of those freedoms.  Yes, sometimes those detriments involve innocent people being hurt or dying.  And that's wrong.  But...I think the detriments of not having those freedoms are worse.  Which doesn't make it any easier to deal with someone arguing that shooting a thief in the back is okay if he's running away with a cheap stereo or TV.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 17, 2013, 10:26:24 AM
Don't forget 3rd and 4th hand smoking. Hell, cigarettes kill before even being lit.

Please...[1]

-Nam
 1. I'm not saying that smoking, or even being near the smoke from the cigarettes or cigars or pipes doesn't cause harm, perhaps even death but the average smoker lives for 75-80 years, the average non-smoker in the US lives about the same amount time.

I also notice how many advocates against smoking blame any and all cancer related illnesses to cigarettes whether they are, or not related. Some of the research should be taken with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 17, 2013, 10:28:30 AM
ParkingPlaces is right.  As long as we value that pesky thing called "freedom", there will be gun deaths in the USA.

?  You kind of make it sound like a zero sum game here.  On the one hand we have FREEDOM!  On the other, gun safety.  I don't know if that is you intent, but that is what it sounds like. 

I think there is a middle ground.  We do not have any other freedom that is absolute.  There are limits to what you can say and print.  Your freedom from seach and seizure is limited.  But that does not mean we are not free.  Same with guns.

Let's put this in perspective, though. 

Okay, let's put that in perspective. We do not have absolute, unregulated freedom to drive.  Every car is registered.  Every driver is licensed. There are rules as to where cars can go.  There are strict safety standards to which cars must be built.  We do not let people under a certain age (varying from state to state) drive.  And over the years we have made driving safer. 

But from a rational perspective, the benefits of allowing people the freedoms to do things that are dangerous, like owning guns, driving cars, and smoking, outweigh the detriments of those freedoms.

?  I can see comparing smoking and guns.  But I don't see where driving fits in.  Driving has a productive goal - transportation.  Smoking, not so much.  The goal is to get high, initially, and then to feed an addiction, later.  The sole point of guns is to hurt or kill something or someone. If the only guns we are talking about are for hunting, then I see the point.  But that's not remotely what we are talking about.

But...I think the detriments of not having those freedoms are worse. 

I don't find this a convincing argument.  What are the detriments of not having the freedom to smoke cigarettes?  What are the benefits?  How about for guns?  Cars?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 10:29:28 AM
Like or dislike the outcome of zimmerman case.  It does prove your statement as false.  However Zimmerman and Martin ended up on the ground.  It does prove your zero chance argument is false.  Zimmerman was able to take a life threatening situation and turn it around from the ground.

Lets say you comply with the robber and they begin to beat you, you have zero chance to defend yourself at this point.  A gun is not a perfect tool to defend yourself but it is better than nothing and better than most alternatives.
Didn't you just say that Zimmerman was able to turn the situation around from the ground?  He was knocked down and hit several times while on the ground; you could say that Martin had begun to beat him.  You might want to avoid contradicting yourself so obviously, it does nothing for your argument and makes your bias even more clear.


there is absolutely not contradiction there?  Please explain. 

The gun did not keep him from getting beaten, it kept him from getting beaten worse and or killed.  For Zimmerman that was a better outcome than the alternative.  As such the gun helped. 

Of course one could contend that his having the gun gave him the courage to get out of the car and go into the night after someone he thought was a threat.  But I don't know if that is true.  I have done both myself, gone out into the darkness to see if the person who robbed my sister had returned with a gun and I have gone out with out a gun as well.


If I were on the neighborhood watch zimmerman was I would have followed the person I thought was a criminal 50% of the time depending on how I evaluated the situation.  As such I might well have been assaulted by Treyvon for the crime of making sure my fellow tennants were safe.




PS I don't really recommend having a gun in a glass case in every room.  I was being silly based upon the comment above mine.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 10:37:29 AM
ParkingPlaces is right.  As long as we value that pesky thing called "freedom", there will be gun deaths in the USA.

?  You kind of make it sound like a zero sum game here.  On the one hand we have FREEDOM!  On the other, gun safety.  I don't know if that is you intent, but that is what it sounds like. 

I think there is a middle ground.  We do not have any other freedom that is absolute.  There are limits to what you can say and print.  Your freedom from seach and seizure is limited.  But that does not mean we are not free.  Same with guns.

We already have a middle ground on this subject.  Guns are not given out to children at school  grab bags.  There are laws regarding their use, ownership, and background checks.  There are laws that state you may not be a fellon, psycho... and own a gun.  How you carry them and how you use them, rate of fire, and size of bullet are all already regulated. 

I am not sure how you restrict them further with our infringing my right to own them and defend myself.  Do I have to go through an annual mental health exam at my own cost to keep them?  Do I need to explain why I need more than six shots while plinking on my shooting range?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 17, 2013, 10:53:30 AM
I've used your quotes here, PP, but the post isn't a direct response to you, per se.

Someone needs to invent a solar powered filter that you can pour people into and have them come out both intelligent and compassionate on the other end. Until we can sustain a society capable of caring for more than the self, we are dead meat. Too often literally.

Yeah, if only everyone were both compassionate and intelligent. But they're not.

Oftentimes, I can rationalize my way to hoping there was a mechanism that could erase all guns from the world, all at once. Nobody would have any guns at all. No drive by shootings, no mass shootings, no shootings of any kind. But, since I don't believe in gods, I don’t think that it's possible. Further, I don't know if it would be beneficial to some individuals. And, like it or not, individualism is a key factor in this arena of debate.

While I understand some people don't feel threatened or insecure in their physical well being, the odds of an individual being the victim of a violent crime in the U.S. seems to be overwhelmingly higher than the odds of being struck by lightning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States 386/100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike  1/500,000

Yeah, I know it's just wiki, so I'm prepared to retract the statement if anyone finds research counter to these claims.

Most individuals feel the need to try and protect themselves from being electrocuted during a lightning storm.

You see, some individuals prefer to try and protect themselves from violent crime too. They want an advantage, an equalizer. Yeah, perhaps the stats don't bear out that a gun is a great equalizer, or that everyone in every case is able to protect themselves with one when the time arises. But, it's a difference in mentality, for whatever reason.

http://lifesciencephdadventures.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/harvard-gun-study-less-guns-results-in-more-violence/ (http://lifesciencephdadventures.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/harvard-gun-study-less-guns-results-in-more-violence/)

Is this better?

For society as a whole? Maybe. But for the individual? No individual wants to be on the receiving end of the violent crimes. No one.

Many of you are fond of proclaiming "paranoia" against gun rights supporters, but I don't think that's blanketly correct. It's not paranoia. Rather, it's planning ahead for one's personal safety, much like wearing a seat belt in a car, or going indoors during a lightning storm. It's taking proactive measures to not be a victim. Many people don't understand this mentality.

But many people don't understand yours either.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 17, 2013, 10:56:02 AM
We already have a middle ground on this subject. 

We don't.  Not in any serious way.

Guns are not given out to children at school  grab bags.

Sorry.  This is a really stupid thing to say.  For one, it does not really address my point.  For two, it completely ignores the obvious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/kentucky-shooting_n_3189828.html
Quote
Authorities in southern Kentucky say a 2-year-old girl has been accidentally shot and killed by her 5-year-old brother, who was playing with a .22-caliber rifle he received as a gift

FREEDOM!

There are laws regarding their use, ownership, and background checks.  There are laws that state you may not be a fellon, psycho... and own a gun.  How you carry them and how you use them, rate of fire, and size of bullet are all already regulated. 

As I have demonstrated already, they are inadequate.  It is like back when they first started to mandate putting seatbelts in cars, but before they required airbags, crash testing, mandatory seatbelt usage, etc.  Do those infringe on your right to transport yourself from one place to another?

I am not sure how you restrict them further with our infringing my right to own them and defend myself.

But you are not actually trying to figure that out, are you?  Because you do not care about the cost of guns to the rest of us.  You don't actually care how many 5 year old boys kill their 2 year old sisters.  You don't actually care whether mentally ill people get their hands on assault rifles.  Like Odin, you don't actually about how gang warfare affects everyone else.  You only care how it impacts you.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 12:57:52 PM
We already have a middle ground on this subject. 

We don't.  Not in any serious way.

That is a matter of opinion.



Guns are not given out to children at school  grab bags.

Sorry.  This is a really stupid thing to say.  For one, it does not really address my point.  For two, it completely ignores the obvious.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/kentucky-shooting_n_3189828.html
Quote
Authorities in southern Kentucky say a 2-year-old girl has been accidentally shot and killed by her 5-year-old brother, who was playing with a .22-caliber rifle he received as a gift

FREEDOM!
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Four-Year-Old-Rolls-Over-And-Kills-16-Month-Old-Sibling-221013361.html



There are laws regarding their use, ownership, and background checks.  There are laws that state you may not be a fellon, psycho... and own a gun.  How you carry them and how you use them, rate of fire, and size of bullet are all already regulated. 

As I have demonstrated already, they are inadequate.  It is like back when they first started to mandate putting seatbelts in cars, but before they required airbags, crash testing, mandatory seatbelt usage, etc.  Do those infringe on your right to transport yourself from one place to another?

Actually I love seatbelts, (airbags?), crash testing.   The only one I think the government should be able to mandate is crash testing.  I am all for government demanding I be informed of unseen risks.  But I do not like when they demand I not take said risks.  If I can drive a motorcycle, then I most certainly should be able to drive a car from india that does not have airbags.



I am not sure how you restrict them further with our infringing my right to own them and defend myself.

But you are not actually trying to figure that out, are you?  Because you do not care about the cost of guns to the rest of us.  You don't actually care how many 5 year old boys kill their 2 year old sisters.  You don't actually care whether mentally ill people get their hands on assault rifles.  Like Odin, you don't actually about how gang warfare affects everyone else.  You only care how it impacts you.

I don't believe in laws that protect people from stupidity.  I did not give my son a gun when he was 4 that he could shoot his sister with.  I taught him about age 3 about guns and the dangers they pose in the hands of a child.  they are not accessible to him yet. 

But there is also not a law that says I can not have a car because some irresponsible parent will let their kid have access to the keys to run his sister over  either.

America has a murder rate that is higher than most of Europe even with out the advent of the gun.  If you could magically eliminate guns tomorrow do you think that all those people killed with guns would be alive?  or do you believe that many would still be killed by other means?

Suicide rates in many European countries exceed that of the USA even with less access to guns.   I am lucky to not need a gun for self defense, I am lucky to not live in an area with roving bands of youths who would beat you to death to join a gang.   But being a human being with empathy I would not strip someone of the right to defend against same.

800,000 to 2,500,000 times per year people use guns defensively to protect life and limb most often the mere sight of the weapon defuses the situation.  Some of those .8 to 2.5 million people would be dead today had they not had a gun.  You would have them surrender their lives for the potential of some small greater good.  I on the other hands would not.

I keep my guns for entertainment (and I am thankfull that is all I want them for).  I have carried my gun one time for defense when purchasing a car.  Turned out I did not need it.  Instead of skipping the purchase of the car that was too good to be true I was able to go out there with out incident and purchase an 8,000 dollar car for 2,300.  I thought this was a craigslist deal that was designed to liberate me of the 2,500 dollars I was carrying but in this case I did not need it.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 17, 2013, 01:25:05 PM
Okay, I amend my statement about a gun giving you zero chance of defending yourself. You have more of a chance than that, as long as you are willing to kill or maim someone and live with the aftermath. Not everyone is ready to face that.

I don't think that TM was trying to rape or rob Zim. (or vice versa).  They had an altercation, ended up fighting, and Zim. shot TM. That is all we know for sure. If Zim. had been arrested and charged with manslaughter and served a few years in jail, there would have been no problem, IMHO. The problem comes when the law allows me to get into it with someone who is not armed, shoot them dead, tell a convoluted story, and walk away free.

It might be useful to carry a gun. If you are attacked, and if you can get to your gun, and if you are able to get off a shot and hit the bad guy, and if the assailant does not have a gun and get to theirs first. And if the attacker does not get the gun away from you and use it on you. And if the attacker does not have a friend hiding nearby. And so on. Many variables that nobody can know in advance.  Real life is not like a movie. There is no script.

I have lived in rough areas full of gangs[1], and have experienced crime. In the 90's I lived next to a crack house in Oakland. What bothered me far more than the open-air drug dealing itself was the fact that the dealers frequently shot up the neighborhood with their guns. Sometimes the bullets went through the walls of neighboring apartments. Once my husband and I ran down the street as bullets flew over our heads. Twice people were shot literally on our doorstep. Would getting more guns into the hands of people in the neighborhood have improved things? Or would the criminals have had more incentive to break into houses and look for the guns?

If there was a way for guns to be secured to keep them away from little kids, angry spouses, disgruntled workers,  drunken people, religious fanatics, racist separatists, depressed teenagers and random crazies [ie all of my relatives], I would have far less of a problem with them. If I thought being armed would protect folks from violence, I would advocate that people be armed.  I am not an "anti-gun activist". I am a "common sense about deadly weapons" activist.

But we keep avoiding the obvious--the US is an anomaly in terms of gun violence.  Fear of the statistically rare attack by armed, dangerous criminals (and/or the idea that guns will somehow protect us from a dictatorship) is making us go effing nuts. People who live in other crowded ethnically diverse urban areas similar to cities in the US--much of Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada-- don't feel the need to carry guns to be safe. They live in democracies where they could vote to allow freer access to weapons if they wanted to.

But for some reason they don't do that. They deal with violent crime in other ways besides giving every citizen "the right to bear arms". And they have lower violent crime rates than we do in the US. They also have far, far fewer deaths and injuries (accidental and intentional) caused by guns. For some strange reason, they think it is more important to give everyone health care than to give everyone guns.

Go figure.


 1. ironically, what protected my older brother from being jumped into gangs back in the '60s was being a JW--nobody wanted them :?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 17, 2013, 01:40:33 PM
again,  guns are not the problem society is the problem. Knives, fists, clubs, poisons kill more people than in  Europe.  This is not a gun problem it is a society problem. 

As for the statistical nature of my likelihood of being involved in a life threating violent confrontation,  that really depends on who I am and where I live.

The person in 1995 spanish Harlem coming home with their social security check or 20 dollars in their wallet and groceries is far more likely than me to be killed for their stuff than me.  That is why I don't feel the need to carry a weapon.  But again I defer to that person as the the risks they are willing to endure. 

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 17, 2013, 02:50:46 PM
Yes, we must protect FREEDOM.  We don't want to end up like England, Denmark, Finland, or any other country like that. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 17, 2013, 04:09:27 PM
If there are aspects of having guns available in a society that are undesirable, all involved should be working together to reduce, or better yet, eliminate, said problems. That takes cooperation. A bunch of those involved don't want to cooperate.

Gun advocates appear most concerned with their freedom to bear arms. The rest of the stuff, like unnecessary deaths, on a daily basis, not so much.

So I have a suggestion. The second amendment says this:
Quote
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Hence I think that every time we decide to go to war, we should just draft all NRA members and other gun owners and send them off to fight, instead of the kids we usually send. If they wanna be the frickin' militia, let 'em.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 17, 2013, 04:15:50 PM
That is a matter of opinion.

And?  You stated your opinion, I stated mine. 


http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Four-Year-Old-Rolls-Over-And-Kills-16-Month-Old-Sibling-221013361.html

You miss the point.  I even quoted it.  You said they don't hand out guns to school children.  I pointed out they did in fact give a gun to a 5 year old.  It was his gun.  No sane person would give a car to a preschooler, but some dumb, cornpone asshat gave a gun to one.  And a 2 year old girl died as a result.  So, as so often happens, an innocent person had to die for the rights of a "responsible" gun owner.

The only one I think... I am all for... I do not like... I most certainly should...

1. you keep voicing your opinions, as if it is self evident that your opinions are how the rest of us should operate.  I find that...tiresome.  I have put effort into making the case that my opinions are better opinions because they would lead to a maximally happy and safe country.  You are only making a case that you have lots and lots of opinions and they happened to be kinda selfish and egotistical.  Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one, and they all stink.  So, do better.

2. You seem to be advocating for some kind of anarcho-libertarian feverdream, where there are no rules and no society and if someone happens to be hurt or injured, well, fuck him, that's his own fault.  Well, that's great.  But unfortunately for you, senator AquaBuddha and the Tea Party nightmare have not yet overthrown our government.  So if you want that kind of freedom, I recommend Somalia as your new residence.  Or possibly Afghanistan.  That is what a country looks like when a whole society takes on your governmental philosophy.

I don't believe in laws that protect people from stupidity.

There you go again with your opinions. 

Try this out: If the problem were only idiotic gun owners hurting themselves, I would call it natural selection.  But that is not the case.  As often as not, someone else pays for their stupidity.  So this is not about laws to protect you from your own stupidity.  It is about laws to protect me and the rest of us from your stupidity.  Why should I - or my wife, or my kid, or my friends - have to pay because some gun owner is an irresponsible asshole?

Look at the title of this thread.  The whole point of it is to show the stupid accidents supposedly responsible gun owners make.  Look at all the people who have to pay for it. 

But there is also not a law that says I can not have a car because some irresponsible parent will let their kid have access to the keys to run his sister over  either.

Because death from a car by a kid is a lot harder to come by than death from gun by a kid.  Do a search on kids who accidentally killed someone with a gun this year.  Search the links in this thread.  Then do a search onkids who accidentally killed someone with a car.   

America has a murder rate that is higher than most of Europe even with out the advent of the gun.

?  I do not know what you are trying to say, but I do not think that means what you think it means.

  If you could magically eliminate guns tomorrow do you think that all those people killed with guns would be alive?  or do you believe that many would still be killed by other means?

I believe the overwhelming majority of them would still be alive.  The statistics bear this out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/gun-violence-study_n_3924063.html
fresh off the press.

Suicide rates in many European countries exceed that of the USA even with less access to guns.

this is an unsupported claim.  links or gtfo. 

But being a human being with empathy

Whom are you talking about?  Not yourself, I hope.

800,000 to 2,500,000 times per year people use guns defensively

this is an unsupported claim.  links or gtfo.  You make a lot of bold claims, without any reason to do so. 

Some of those .8 to 2.5 million people would be dead today had they not had a gun.  You would have them surrender their lives for the potential of some small greater good.

this^ is a mess. 


Turned out I did not need it.  Instead of skipping the purchase of the car that was too good to be true I was able to go out there with out incident and purchase an 8,000 dollar car for 2,300.  I thought this was a craigslist deal that was designed to liberate me of the 2,500 dollars I was carrying but in this case I did not need it.

You are an idiot.  You walked into a situation you thought was potentially life threatening over a couple thousand dollars.  And you thought you'd be safe by carrying.  Stone. Cold. Stupid.   
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence
Quote
Principle #1: Avoid dangerous people and dangerous places.

Everyone involved in that deal was lucky no one was hurt.  I've sold cars over the internet before and met perspective buyers.  I've felt completely safe and never once felt I wanted a gun.  Do you know where we meet?  Across the street from the police station.   If any of them had showed up with a gun, I would have assumed they were there to steal my car.   

You probably should not own a gun.   

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on September 17, 2013, 04:26:53 PM
there is absolutely not contradiction there?  Please explain. 

The gun did not keep him from getting beaten, it kept him from getting beaten worse and or killed.  For Zimmerman that was a better outcome than the alternative.  As such the gun helped.
If Zimmerman was able to turn the situation around after he had already been attacked, then there's no reason that the same wouldn't apply in other situations.  Thus you contradicted yourself by saying that if you comply with a robber, you have zero (rather, little) chance of defending yourself if he decides to start beating you instead.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 17, 2013, 04:49:09 PM
there is absolutely not contradiction there?  Please explain. 

The gun did not keep him from getting beaten, it kept him from getting beaten worse and or killed.  For Zimmerman that was a better outcome than the alternative.  As such the gun helped.
If Zimmerman was able to turn the situation around after he had already been attacked, then there's no reason that the same wouldn't apply in other situations.  Thus you contradicted yourself by saying that if you comply with a robber, you have zero (rather, little) chance of defending yourself if he decides to start beating you instead.

That's what I read when I read his comment. I figured if I just said his comment was "nonsense" (which it is) that that'd be better than explaining the contradiction that he'd turn around denying that's what he said or meant.

Basically, I felt someone else could take the head injury. ;)

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on September 17, 2013, 04:51:50 PM
?  You kind of make it sound like a zero sum game here.  On the one hand we have FREEDOM!  On the other, gun safety.  I don't know if that is you intent, but that is what it sounds like.
All I was saying is that as long as we value the freedom of individuals to own guns, there will be gun deaths in the USA[1].   You might want to think over why you thought I might have been making it a zero sum game, though.

Quote from: screwtape
I think there is a middle ground.  We do not have any other freedom that is absolute.  There are limits to what you can say and print.  Your freedom from seach and seizure is limited.  But that does not mean we are not free.  Same with guns.
Of course, there are gradients.  The question is where we set the issue of gun ownership.

Quote from: screwtape
Okay, let's put that in perspective. We do not have absolute, unregulated freedom to drive.  Every car is registered.  Every driver is licensed. There are rules as to where cars can go.  There are strict safety standards to which cars must be built.  We do not let people under a certain age (varying from state to state) drive.  And over the years we have made driving safer.
A lot of what has made driving safer has been technological advancements that make cars safer to drive and help rescue people from the consequences of their own mistakes.  Not all of it, of course.  But a sizable percentage.  And it's worth mentioning that even with the various driving laws, there are people who break the rules (whether accidentally or on purpose).  Many of them get away with it, too, since we don't have enough police to strictly enforce all the driving laws.

Quote from: screwtape
?  I can see comparing smoking and guns.  But I don't see where driving fits in.  Driving has a productive goal - transportation.  Smoking, not so much.  The goal is to get high, initially, and then to feed an addiction, later.  The sole point of guns is to hurt or kill something or someone. If the only guns we are talking about are for hunting, then I see the point.  But that's not remotely what we are talking about.
It's not about whether they have productive goals or not.  They're all things that we have the right to do or have, that we could go without.  We don't need individual motor vehicles - buses, subways, and trains would do the job quite nicely, if we were willing to switch to using them as a society.  And without those, we wouldn't need to have driver's licenses in general.

Quote from: screwtape
I don't find this a convincing argument.  What are the detriments of not having the freedom to smoke cigarettes?  What are the benefits?  How about for guns?  Cars?
What happened when we made it illegal to drink?  What's happening now that we've made it illegal to use various drugs?  Those represent some of the drawbacks to removing someone's freedom to do something (like smoking).  A significant portion of people do it anyway, and they cause more problems than would have happened if it had simply stayed legal.

If you really want me to, I'll see about making up a list of benefits and detriments.  But I can't do it right now, thus why I'm asking.
 1. whether due to criminals shooting people, people shooting criminals, people accidentally shooting other people, or people shooting themselves
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 17, 2013, 05:21:57 PM
Go ahead and quote where I said that.  Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize.  And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.

It's possible I have attributed some traits and opinions to you because you seem to be so vehemently for, what I consider to be, unnecessary laws that further restrict the 2nd Amendment.  I attributed to you the desire to outlaw "assault weapons," which would include AR-15s.  Outlawing AR-15s nationwide would unnecessarily restrict what I consider to be a legitimate use by, say, a Wyoming rancher in defense of his property, cattle, against a dangerous adversary, a pack of wolves.  (I don't think I ever said wolves attack people, so tou-fucking-che!) 

But, before I get too deep into my apology, please tell me what you meant by this post, please:

I disagree with that assessment, but that is not the point.  I'm not suggesting we take away all the guns.  At least, not yet.  I'm suggesting we have stricter laws about who gets them and what kind.  Right now we say crazy people cannot have guns.  But how do we know who is crazy?  How do gun sellers know? 

NY state has pretty strict gun laws compared to some states.  If I recall correctly, you may own long guns without registration, but handguns must be registered.  Here is where it gets tricky.  Private gun owners may sell to each other without registering.  So really, there is no regulation of who owns a gun.

Bold is mine.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 17, 2013, 05:28:57 PM
Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 17, 2013, 05:35:09 PM
Sorry, fellow folks in America. Guns will be a problem for as long as we pretend we are free because we, as a country, have no viable mechanism, political or otherwise, to solve the problem.


We could amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment.


In 2150.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 17, 2013, 06:45:42 PM
Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

XM307 ACSW

Not sure what your point was.  This is a fully-automatic weapon.  It takes a special permit to own one in the US.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 17, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

XM307 ACSW

Not sure what your point was.  This is a fully-automatic weapon.  It takes a special permit to own one in the US.

Odin, King of the Gods

My point is: what does the average citizen need to own a gun such as that that can kill someone from miles away?

It sure can't be target practice, or hunting; that gun has one purpose: killing someone. Handguns, and certain types of rifles/shotguns are understandable but that gun is made specifically to kill someone from a great distance. Why should the average citizen be able to own such a gun?

If you tell me target practice: you're full of shit.
If you tell me hunting: you're a crackpot.
If you tell me protection: protection from who?

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: shnozzola on September 17, 2013, 08:07:49 PM
Quote
"We saw a man down the hall with a rifle, and he aimed at us," witness Terrie Durham. "He shot and missed and we were all yelling for people to get out of the building."
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/09/washington-navy-yard-shooting-injures-several-people-94074.html#ixzz2fCWnadQe
 

   I think of the doors in American buildings.  Polished bronze, wood, beautiful glass doors, carefully measured and ordered and fit and lined up on all sides of our beautiful architecture, making access to American buildings, whether local, state, national government buildings, churches, museums, hospitals, baseball stadiums, airports - so easy and necessary to go in and out.

   The doors are always locked now.  We pass by 35 doors while waiting in long lines for one door to get funneled through and double-checked and detected, standing and watching soneone watch our belongings.  What is society becoming?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg794-zi5WU
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 17, 2013, 08:23:57 PM
Sorry, fellow folks in America. Guns will be a problem for as long as we pretend we are free because we, as a country, have no viable mechanism, political or otherwise, to solve the problem.


We could amend the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment.


In 2150.

Even that is a pipe dream. Sadly. On the bright side, I'll be too dead by then to get shot.

To clarify, when I say we have no viable mechanism, I don't mean legally. I'm sure such a process is available from that standpoint. But since humans are involved, especially American humans, all are so busy leaning one way or the other so far that they don't have the attention span required to conjure up a compromise. They are apparently all too busy making sure they don't tip over.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 18, 2013, 07:25:11 AM
Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

XM307 ACSW

Not sure what your point was.  This is a fully-automatic weapon.  It takes a special permit to own one in the US.

Odin, King of the Gods

My point is: what does the average citizen need to own a gun such as that that can kill someone from miles away?

It sure can't be target practice, or hunting; that gun has one purpose: killing someone. Handguns, and certain types of rifles/shotguns are understandable but that gun is made specifically to kill someone from a great distance. Why should the average citizen be able to own such a gun?

If you tell me target practice: you're full of shit.
If you tell me hunting: you're a crackpot.
If you tell me protection: protection from who?

-Nam

The average citizen is NOT able to own such a gun, which is what Odin was saying. Special permits, and a class 3 FFL are required for ALL full auto weapons, but I don't think your gun would ever be allowed to be sold to the general populace. Maybe, possibly, to a very specialized collector, but even then, I kinda doubt it.

But it's silly of you to be trying to pick on a gun of this type in this thread. How many full auto weapons, no matter their lethal range, are found in screwtape's gun fails? How many full auto weapons are used in crime? Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.

But since humans are involved, especially American humans, all are so busy leaning one way or the other so far that they don't have the attention span required to conjure up a compromise. They are apparently all too busy making sure they don't tip over.

Careful, I would hate to see you lose your balance.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 18, 2013, 07:52:25 AM
Funny, I mentioned a gun a page or two back asking a reason for civilians to own it (not that I know if any civilians do) and I received no answer. Probably because restrictions on certain guns, even by advocates of guns, seems needed for those weapons.

-Nam

XM307 ACSW

Not sure what your point was.  This is a fully-automatic weapon.  It takes a special permit to own one in the US.

Odin, King of the Gods

My point is: what does the average citizen need to own a gun such as that that can kill someone from miles away?

It sure can't be target practice, or hunting; that gun has one purpose: killing someone. Handguns, and certain types of rifles/shotguns are understandable but that gun is made specifically to kill someone from a great distance. Why should the average citizen be able to own such a gun?

If you tell me target practice: you're full of shit.
If you tell me hunting: you're a crackpot.
If you tell me protection: protection from who?

-Nam

The average citizen is NOT able to own such a gun, which is what Odin was saying. Special permits, and a class 3 FFL are required for ALL full auto weapons, but I don't think your gun would ever be allowed to be sold to the general populace. Maybe, possibly, to a very specialized collector, but even then, I kinda doubt it.

But it's silly of you to be trying to pick on a gun of this type in this thread. How many full auto weapons, no matter their lethal range, are found in screwtape's gun fails? How many full auto weapons are used in crime? Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.

But since humans are involved, especially American humans, all are so busy leaning one way or the other so far that they don't have the attention span required to conjure up a compromise. They are apparently all too busy making sure they don't tip over.

Careful, I would hate to see you lose your balance.

Yes, but what I am saying is that some people, like the NRA, and those they have in their pocket[1] would put such weapons in the average citizens possession (if they could afford it), and my question: what does the average citizen need such a weapon? Hell,what does a non-military person (not the military) need such a weapon?

It's a weapon designed solely for killing people from great distances. No one but the military should have one, hell perhaps even they shouldn't have it. But it is classified as a "gun", as so many extremely dangerous weapons are.

"It looks so cool! I want one." NRA replies, "And you should have one."

-Nam
 1. 99% of all Republicans and probably a little less than half Democrats
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 18, 2013, 08:00:39 AM
Gun fail 35.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/16/1237186/-GunFAIL-XXXV

9 people had bullets come into their homes uninvited.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 18, 2013, 08:10:47 AM
Go ahead and quote where I said that.  Then, after you utterly fail to do so, come back and apologize.  And maybe answer some of my questions, which you utterly evaded.

It's possible I have attributed some traits and opinions to you because you seem to be so vehemently for, what I consider to be, unnecessary laws that further restrict the 2nd Amendment.

I already retracted that statement.  What kind of person rattles on about retracted statements?  One who was not paying attention?  One who was drunk?  I mean, jesus H christ, Odin, I even quoted it for you.  Your rebuttal is too late to be of any value. 

Your questions are moot.  You have failed to address the basic points I have made and the simple questions I have asked.  Instead, you repeat your mantra of "criminals will break the law".  Until you deal with my points and questions in an adult and rational way, I have no obligation to respond to your questions.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on September 18, 2013, 08:10:58 AM
The average citizen is NOT able to own such a gun, which is what Odin was saying. Special permits, and a class 3 FFL are required for ALL full auto weapons, but I don't think your gun would ever be allowed to be sold to the general populace. Maybe, possibly, to a very specialized collector, but even then, I kinda doubt it.

Quick question about this if you don't mind, I'm not familiar with US gun licencing.

How do you get a special permit?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 18, 2013, 08:31:05 AM
Yes, but what I am saying is that some people, like the NRA, and those they have in their pocket[1] would put such weapons in the average citizens possession (if they could afford it),
 1. 99% of all Republicans and probably a little less than half Democrats

I'll have to take your word for it. I'm sure there are some people that would love to have one, and I bet it'd be a hoot to shoot!

 
Quote
and my question: what does the average citizen need such a weapon? Hell,what does a non-military person (not the military) need such a weapon?

Need one? Obviously, they don't need it. Desire one? Well, that's completely different. I'll presume that you understand something about...cars.

Take Jay Leno for instance. He has a VAST collection of cars. Some much more practical than others, and some are wholly impractical, have 1000hp, and get about 3mpg. Does he need these cars? Nope, he doesn't. But, he finds value in owning them. He finds value in owning his entire collection.

Now, if you can understand that, you can also understand why some people collect firearms. Some collect vintage pieces, some collect military armaments, some collect shotguns, some collect handguns, some collect what they can afford. They aren't doing it for nefarious purposes.

Quick question about this if you don't mind, I'm not familiar with US gun licencing.

How do you get a special permit?

I do not know, as I've never felt the need to own one. I pretty sure there is a fairly extensive background check, and permits and such, but I'm sure you could find out with a quick Google search. I tried, but many of the sites that come up are blocked at my place of employment.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 18, 2013, 08:43:06 AM
I'm sure there are some people that would love to have one, and I bet it'd be a hoot to shoot!

Me.  I'd love to have one.   

 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 18, 2013, 08:44:44 AM
Your questions are moot.  You have failed to address the basic points I have made and the simple questions I have asked.  Instead, you repeat your mantra of "criminals will break the law".  Until you deal with my points and questions in an adult and rational way, I have no obligation to respond to your questions.

I'm not going back through the 10 pages of minutiae to see which questions I haven't dealt with.  So, let's start again.

Why don't you state your questions, or perhaps your proposals, again here, and I can try to address them?  Maybe it would be better to start a new thread, titled something like "Common Sense Gun Controls," or some such.

Odin, King of the Gods

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 18, 2013, 09:13:56 AM
I'm really not interested in having a conversation with you.  In the two gun conversations you and I have had, you have been resistant to consider any kind of changes that would be productive.  You have not demonstrated to me at any point that you are serious about discussing how to better keep guns away from people who should not have them.  You have not actually paid any attention to what was said by me, and you have painted with a very broad brush.  Any answers you have given have been shallow or vague or so emotionally charged as to be unuseful.   

I created this thread originally specifically so you would not have to participate:
I made a new topic so everyone who is tired of the old thread don't have it pop up in their "new posts"

So, if you want to talk about this in another thread, you need to show me you are capable of it.  I am not going to be the only participant putting in effort - which is more than just banging out an opinion on the keyboard.  I need a good faith gesture.  You are not even willing to go back and look at our conversation here, so I'm not holding my breath.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on September 18, 2013, 09:22:21 AM
dante,

I had a look on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License#Application_fees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License#Application_fees)

the requirements seem to be faily lax

Conditions of application
 
Quote
ATF will approve the application if the applicant:
  Is 21 years or older.
 Is not prohibited from handling or possessing firearms or ammunition
 Has not violated the Gun Control Act or its regulations
 Has not failed to disclose information or facts in connection with his application
 Has premises for conducting business or collecting

it looks like if you really wanted to own big guns you could get your licence fairly easily subject to paying the fee.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 18, 2013, 09:35:05 AM
dante,

I had a look on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License#Application_fees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License#Application_fees)

the requirements seem to be faily lax

Conditions of application
 
Quote
ATF will approve the application if the applicant:
  Is 21 years or older.
 Is not prohibited from handling or possessing firearms or ammunition
 Has not violated the Gun Control Act or its regulations
 Has not failed to disclose information or facts in connection with his application
 Has premises for conducting business or collecting

it looks like if you really wanted to own big guns you could get your licence fairly easily subject to paying the fee.

I just talked to one of my coworkers, who's much better versed in this area than I. He has both an FFL and the "tax stamp" for the Dept. of Justice, BATF division.

And yes, he's a crazy person.

So, I misspoke. The FFL apparently has nothing to do with full auto weapons, it's merely the license to buy and sell firearms.

The tax stamp license from the BATF is for full auto weaponry, but I was just told it's not all that difficult to get one of those either. I was also told that there are nearly 2000 of those active in my fair city of ~500,00 people.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 18, 2013, 09:55:20 AM
But since humans are involved, especially American humans, all are so busy leaning one way or the other so far that they don't have the attention span required to conjure up a compromise. They are apparently all too busy making sure they don't tip over.
Careful, I would hate to see you lose your balance.

My left-leaning ways are the reason I live on the moon, where it is much easier to remain on my feet.

Bonus: Air pollution is much less of a problem!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 18, 2013, 10:04:46 AM
Here is the law regarding machine guns in my state, NC. 

D. Machine Guns

Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 14-409, it is unlawful for any person, firm, or
corporation to manufacture, sell, give away, dispose of, use or possess machine guns,
sub-machine guns, or other like weapons. A machine gun or sub-machine gun is one which
shoots, or can be readily restored to shoot more than one round, without manual reloading, by a
single function of the trigger. It also includes any frame or receiver of such a weapon, or parts
used in converting a weapon into a machine gun or sub-machine gun. This prohibition does not
apply to the following:

1. banks, merchants, and recognized business establishments for use in their
respective places of business. However, these persons must first apply to and
receive from the sheriff of the county in which their business is located, a permit
to possess the weapon for the purpose of defending their business;
2. officers and soldiers of the United States Armed Forces, when in the discharge of
their official duties;
3. officers and soldiers of the Militia, when being called into actual service;
4. officers of the state, or county, city or town, charged with the execution oflaws of
the state, when acting in the discharge of their official duties;
5. the manufacture, use, or possession of such weapons for scientific or experimental
purposes when such manufacture, use, or possession is lawful under federal laws
and the weapon is registered with a federal agency, and a permit to manufacture,
use, or possess the weapon has been obtained by the sheriff of the county in which
the weapon is located; or
6. a person who lawfully possesses or owns a weapon in compliance with 26 U.S.C.
Chaper 53, §§ 5801-5871. Nothing limits however the discretion of the sheriff in
executing the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon.


Any bona fide resident of the state who now owns a machine gun used in former wars may
retain and keep that weapon at his or her own property, as a relic or souvenir, without violating
the provisions of this section, as long as he/she reports this weapon to the sheriff of the county in
which he/she lives.

Bold is mine.  The Sheriff has complete discretion on who can own a machine gun in his or her county in NC.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 18, 2013, 10:10:04 AM
Bold is mine.  The Sheriff has complete discretion on who can own a machine gun in his or her county in NC.

Odin, King of the Gods

Yeah, that's what my colleague told me about CO law too.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 18, 2013, 12:40:07 PM
Dante,

A car can't blow your head to pieces from miles away. It's not "desire", it's "want" and paranoia that the government has one and you don't.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 18, 2013, 12:49:49 PM
Dante,

A car can't blow your head to pieces from miles away.

How is this relevant to the question you asked?

Quote
It's not "desire", it's "want"

What's the difference between "desire" and "want" in Nam's world? I don't understand why you're trying to make a distinction.

Quote
and paranoia that the government has one and you don't.

Yeah, that must be why screwtape would love to have one too. Paranoia.  &)

You can believe what you want, but that don't make it the truth.

edit for clarity.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 18, 2013, 01:50:50 PM
Dante,

You compared the same want (or desire) of collecting cars to collecting guns. A car can't kill you from miles away like the gun I referenced can. Therefore the comparison is asinine.

I would understand that a person had a gun collection that spanned the lifetime of the guns being g collected (type, age) but those who advocate for gun ownership by way of any/every possible gun created, I highly doubt one who collects military grade guns are doing it for the joy of collecting. What desire, need, etc., would one have to have a XM307 ACSW in their collection?

"It's a military gun, it goes with my military guns."

I could understand if it was made incapable of firing, and then collecting it merely as a decorative but  people who want that gun, I highly doubt it's for the "collection" bug.

Oh, and "desire" is defined as a "strong need of something" where as "want", is like, "I want a peach today, instead of an apple." Not signified as a "strong" want but just a want.



-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 18, 2013, 02:20:18 PM
Dante,

You compared the same want (or desire) of collecting cars to collecting guns. A car can't kill you from miles away like the gun I referenced can. Therefore the comparison is asinine.

I disagree. The comparison is of the "collecting", regardless of the item being collected. People collect all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Just because guns can kill doesn't render the comparison invalid.


Quote
I would understand that a person had a gun collection that spanned the lifetime of the guns being g collected (type, age) but those who advocate for gun ownership by way of any/every possible gun created, I highly doubt one who collects military grade guns are doing it for the joy of collecting.

^^This doesn't make sense to me. I'm going to break it up, hoping I have the context correct. Let me know if not.

Quote
I would understand that a person had a gun collection that spanned the lifetime of the guns being g collected (type, age) but those who advocate for gun ownership by way of any/every possible gun created,

I don't disagree that the general populace should not be privy to some weapons. There are, and should be, limits on the type of weaponry available.

Quote
I highly doubt one who collects military grade guns are doing it for the joy of collecting.

Some are, some aren't. But grouping all these collectors under one umbrella isn't doing your argument any favors. It's disingenuous. You know that not every single collector of these guns has the same motivations.

As a slight aside, there's a shooting range a few miles outside of town, called DragonMan's, where you can rent a .50 cal full auto machine gun to shoot on site. And it's FUN!

http://www.dragonmans.com/

Quote
What desire, need, etc., would one have to have a XM307 ACSW in their collection?

Desire =/= need, Nam. Stop doing that. Need = necessity. Desire = want.

But, to answer the question, it could be for the same reason that I want last year's Ferrari F1 car in my collection.

Because it's a bad ass piece of machinery.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 18, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
The Sheriff has complete discretion on who can own a machine gun in his or her county in NC.

So, no black people then. That is the whole point of sheriff discretion and has been the case since Jim Crow, particularly in NC.

BTW, NC just made it legal to carry guns in bars. 
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/04/3163383/chapel-hill-downtown-group-targets.html
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/08/guns-bars-0821
FREEDOM!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 18, 2013, 03:23:28 PM

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Four-Year-Old-Rolls-Over-And-Kills-16-Month-Old-Sibling-221013361.html

You miss the point.  I even quoted it.  You said they don't hand out guns to school children.  I pointed out they did in fact give a gun to a 5 year old.  It was his gun.  No sane person would give a car to a preschooler, but some dumb, cornpone asshat gave a gun to one.  And a 2 year old girl died as a result.  So, as so often happens, an innocent person had to die for the rights of a "responsible" gun owner.

Ok we are in agreement.  So I should not be able to defend myself because some asshole decided to give their kid a gun, and you should not be able to own a car because some asshole decided to leave their kid unattended with the car.

The only one I think... I am all for... I do not like... I most certainly should...

1. you keep voicing your opinions, as if it is self evident that your opinions are how the rest of us should operate.  I find that...tiresome.  I have put effort into making the case that my opinions are better opinions because they would lead to a maximally happy and safe country.  You are only making a case that you have lots and lots of opinions and they happened to be kinda selfish and egotistical.  Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone has one, and they all stink.  So, do better.

2. You seem to be advocating for some kind of anarcho-libertarian feverdream, where there are no rules and no society and if someone happens to be hurt or injured, well, fuck him, that's his own fault.  Well, that's great.  But unfortunately for you, senator AquaBuddha and the Tea Party nightmare have not yet overthrown our government.  So if you want that kind of freedom, I recommend Somalia as your new residence.  Or possibly Afghanistan.  That is what a country looks like when a whole society takes on your governmental philosophy.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.  I never suggested a world with no rules.  Just not a nanny state.  Somalia has no laws and I am not in any recommending anarchy.   What I said was that I believe laws should not be based on a few assholes who do idiotic things that are already covered by other laws.  No one is suggesting a 5 year old or a 2 year old should be given a gun for their birtday.


I don't believe in laws that protect people from stupidity.

There you go again with your opinions. 

Try this out: If the problem were only idiotic gun owners hurting themselves, I would call it natural selection.  But that is not the case.  As often as not, someone else pays for their stupidity.  So this is not about laws to protect you from your own stupidity.  It is about laws to protect me and the rest of us from your stupidity.  Why should I - or my wife, or my kid, or my friends - have to pay because some gun owner is an irresponsible asshole?

Look at the title of this thread.  The whole point of it is to show the stupid accidents supposedly responsible gun owners make.  Look at all the people who have to pay for it. 

Idiotic people with cars are hurting innocent people I am not for banning cars or restricting their use further.  We have sufficeint motorvehicle laws, and we have sufficient gun laws in my opionion.

But there is also not a law that says I can not have a car because some irresponsible parent will let their kid have access to the keys to run his sister over  either.

Because death from a car by a kid is a lot harder to come by than death from gun by a kid.  Do a search on kids who accidentally killed someone with a gun this year.  Search the links in this thread.  Then do a search onkids who accidentally killed someone with a car. 

Accidental death by gun by a child is almost always preventable,  I still don't see what law anyone is proposing that will stop this.  Well beyond abolition of guns.  How many kids were killed last year in swimming pools do to negligent parents.  Pools serve virtually no legitimate purpose most of the time (beyond entertainment) and negligent people drown their kids in huge numbers through negligence.   Negligence nows no law I don't want the nanny state making laws based upon negligent behavior.

America has a murder rate that is higher than most of Europe even with out the advent of the gun.

?  I do not know what you are trying to say, but I do not think that means what you think it means.

I don't know where your confusion is, but I will try again.  The United States Of America has a (non fire arm related ) murder rate that exceeds The UK's total murder rate.  In other words even absent guns and even if all the murders that are comitted with guns in America were eliminated we would still have a murder rate that exceeded the UK's.  There also would not be a 1 for 1 reduction in murders if guns were eliminated tomorrow.  I suspect that many murders use guns only for their convenience, that if that tool were magically eliminated that many if not most of the murders would still happen by other means.  I still need to review your link below

  If you could magically eliminate guns tomorrow do you think that all those people killed with guns would be alive?  or do you believe that many would still be killed by other means?


I believe the overwhelming majority of them would still be alive.  The statistics bear this out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/gun-violence-study_n_3924063.html
fresh off the press.
I still need to review this link.

Suicide rates in many European countries exceed that of the USA even with less access to guns.

this is an unsupported claim.  links or gtfo. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate  The UK with virtually no access to guns comparitively to the us has a suicide rate that is 11.8 vs 12.0 here in the US.  It appears that even with out guns the UK manages to have just about as many people per capita commit suicide.  Apparently people will kill themselve in other ways if you remove the gun.


But being a human being with empathy

Whom are you talking about?  Not yourself, I hope.

I have empathy for people who are preyed upon by criminals, I understand that some people live in situations far worse than mine and I would not take away their best means of defense.


800,000 to 2,500,000 times per year people use guns defensively

this is an unsupported claim.  links or gtfo.  You make a lot of bold claims, without any reason to do so. 
So it is your claim that guns are never used defensively?  The 800,000 to 2.5  million claim is a well known statistic.  I would think you could find it if you look hard enough.  The contested number is approximately 800,000 and the 2.5 million is the claim made in a study  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use)


Some of those .8 to 2.5 million people would be dead today had they not had a gun.  You would have them surrender their lives for the potential of some small greater good.

this^ is a mess.
 


Turned out I did not need it.  Instead of skipping the purchase of the car that was too good to be true I was able to go out there with out incident and purchase an 8,000 dollar car for 2,300.  I thought this was a craigslist deal that was designed to liberate me of the 2,500 dollars I was carrying but in this case I did not need it.

You are an idiot.  You walked into a situation you thought was potentially life threatening over a couple thousand dollars.  And you thought you'd be safe by carrying.  Stone. Cold. Stupid.   
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence
Quote
Principle #1: Avoid dangerous people and dangerous places.

Everyone involved in that deal was lucky no one was hurt.  I've sold cars over the internet before and met perspective buyers.  I've felt completely safe and never once felt I wanted a gun.  Do you know where we meet?  Across the street from the police station.   If any of them had showed up with a gun, I would have assumed they were there to steal my car.   

You probably should not own a gun.

First off in the situation at my sisters house there was extremely little chance of them getting the drop on me.  I walked over to her house to identify if there was any criminal activity going on.  My gun was drawn had the people emerged from the house and made aggressive move they would have been the only ones at risk.  My plan was to see if they appeared to be there for good reason and I identified the vehicle and ultimately the people before they even knew I was there.  If the vehicle could not have been identified I would have called the police and retreated to a safer postion.  The gun offered me a defensive option had things turned ugly.  My alternative was to Call the police on someone who was either  supposed to be there or not, and waited 30 minutes for them to arrive.  I was willing to put my life on the line for my sister cause I am a nice guy.  You apparently would allow your sister to be robbed blind.

and the situation with the my craigslist purchase was in a seedy neighborhood.  The vehicle was not on the road and could not have been driven legally to a safe location.  Ultimately when I evaluated the situation the gun remained in my vehicle.  On the off chance  I needed it I could have retreated to my vehicle and potentially used it defensively.   If the situation had looked bad enough I would not have even left my vehicle.   I am not looking for a confrontation.  but I do receive some solice in the fact that I had the gun and was willing to partake of this iffy transacton.  Had I not had the gun with me I would not have even driven to the location.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 18, 2013, 05:12:12 PM
Dear US gun collectors;

I have taken up toxic substance and poison collecting. Not to worry-- it's the same as collecting dolls, baseball cards or military grade weaponry. Eventually, I'd love to own a sample of every poisonous substance known. I never plan to use any of them to kill anyone. I just want to collect all the poisons and look at them and take them out and play with them from time to time. Because poisons are bad ass. I promise not to let any children or crazy people near them. And I promise to wash my hands well before I go off to my job as a dental technician. What could go wrong?

Sincerely,

A very sane person
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 18, 2013, 06:48:10 PM
The Sheriff has complete discretion on who can own a machine gun in his or her county in NC.

So, no black people then. That is the whole point of sheriff discretion and has been the case since Jim Crow, particularly in NC.

BTW, NC just made it legal to carry guns in bars. 
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/04/3163383/chapel-hill-downtown-group-targets.html
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/08/guns-bars-0821
FREEDOM!


I heard yesterday that it's now illegal for guns to be destroyed there. You have to, by law, recycle them back onto the streets.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 18, 2013, 08:52:47 PM
BTW, NC just made it legal to carry guns in bars. 
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/04/3163383/chapel-hill-downtown-group-targets.html
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/08/guns-bars-0821
FREEDOM!

Quote
Consumption of alcohol remains illegal when carrying a firearm. However, the new law says that unless the owner has posted a notice saying otherwise, carrying a concealed weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol is OK ...

This is not just Gun FAIL, this is Logic FAIL. It's also Legal FAIL. IF bartenders are prohibited from drinking while working but wanted the privilege of carrying a gun, then there might be some logic to this law. But if any conceal-carrier can walk into a bar, what other conclusion can we draw that the conceal-carrier is about to engage in illegal behavior? Do conceal-carriers only drink Dr Pepper and orange juice?

The stop-and-frisk unit should be stationed at the doorway of every bar in North Carolina.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 19, 2013, 03:44:00 AM
This is not just Gun FAIL, this is Logic FAIL. It's also Legal FAIL. IF bartenders are prohibited from drinking while working but wanted the privilege of carrying a gun, then there might be some logic to this law. But if any conceal-carrier can walk into a bar, what other conclusion can we draw that the conceal-carrier is about to engage in illegal behavior? Do conceal-carriers only drink Dr Pepper and orange juice?

The stop-and-frisk unit should be stationed at the doorway of every bar in North Carolina.


It was always illegal to drink any alcohol and carry concealed in NC.  The new law didn't change any of that.  The presumption is that a concealed carry holder will not be drinking in any establishment that serves alcohol while carrying.

As was stated, any establishment that serves alcohol can post a sign prohibiting concealed carry.  No need for stop-and-frisk.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 19, 2013, 07:28:28 AM
is there a big problem with drunk CCW people who are packing in bars across NC?  Links?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 19, 2013, 08:54:01 AM
is there a big problem with drunk CCW people who are packing in bars across NC?

No, and that's part of the point.  CCW licenses are obtained so folks can "legally" carry their handguns on them, or within reach in an automobile.  They are, by rational definition, law abiding.  If they weren't they would just carry their guns and not worry about the law.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-415 .11 (c2).
  It shall be unlawful for a person, with or without a permit, to carry a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol or at any time while the person has remaining in the person's body any alcohol or in the person's blood a controlled substance previously consumed, but a person does not violate this condition if a controlled substance in the person's blood was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts or if the person is on the person's own property.

We were taught in CCW class that law enforcement in general would not tolerate any amount of alcohol in one's system while carrying. 

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 19, 2013, 01:47:29 PM
is there a big problem with drunk CCW people who are packing in bars across NC?  Links?

What is a big problem?  I would say any problem with drunk people carrying guns is a pretty big problem.  I would guess it was not (past tense) because it used to be (past tense) illegal to carry in an establishment that sold or provided alcohol.  But that superfluous law is history.  You may now carry your concealed weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol.

I think I'd feel better about it if it was open carry instead of concealed carry.  I know ccw carriers are not supposed to take their guns inside places that have signs that forbid it.  But the gun's concealed, so how do you know?  And if they do get caught doing it, the penalty is... they're asked to leave.  Big deal. 


They are, by rational definition, law abiding.  If they weren't they would just carry their guns and not worry about the law.

It is not a binary choice - be a criminal and break every law or be law abiding and never break a law.  A person could conceivably get a ccp - because the penalty of getting caught with a gun without one is very high - but still break some of the rules, particularly if the consequences are negligible.  Like carrying in a mall, where one entrance may not have the "legal signage". 

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/concealed-carry-issues-discussions/122032-nc-gun-buster-signs.html#post1910804
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/north-carolina-discussion-firearm-news/25995-cross-creek-mall-conceal-carry-question.html
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 19, 2013, 02:06:21 PM
is there a big problem with drunk CCW people who are packing in bars across NC?  Links?

What is a big problem?  I would say any problem with drunk people carrying guns is a pretty big problem.  I would guess it was not (past tense) because it used to be (past tense) illegal to carry in an establishment that sold or provided alcohol.  But that superfluous law is history.  You may now carry your concealed weapon into a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol.

But it was, and still is, illegal to consume alcohol while carrying. So, if these permit holders were already following the law and NOT going into places that served alcohol, why do you conclude that they'll now be lawbreakers and start consuming alcohol?

Granted, I'm sure the chances some idiot breaking this law may be marginally higher, but if they were generally law abiding before, why wouldn't they continue to be?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 19, 2013, 02:26:26 PM
Granted, I'm sure the chances some idiot breaking this law may be marginally higher, but if they were generally law abiding before, why wouldn't they continue to be?

Because doing the wrong thing has been made easier. 

Look, I'm not saying every gun owner is going to go out to the local bar, get boozed up and start shooting the place up.  And I don't deny that most - by a large majority - gun owners are (or try to be) law abiding.  But as was demonstrated in the forums I linked in the previous post, you don't have to sort through too many gun owners who find one who is willing to bend the rules, play stupid, or ignore the law because he thinks his rights trump everyone else's. 

So, because it is now okay to carry a gun in a bar, people will.  And cases of people - who are otherwise and generally law abiding -  with guns who drink will go up.  And only a tiny fraction of them will be caught.  But it will make a difference.  The more opportunities there are to make a mistake, the more mistakes there will be.  It does not take a lot of alcohol to cause a person to make bad decisions. 

Is it happening now? Sure.  But this gives a whole lot more people a whole lot more opportunity to say to themselves, "eh, one beer with my pals won't kill anyone."  And mos of the time it won't.  Sometimes, it will. 

This was a pretty common sense law.  Repealing it was pretty unnecessary.  I wish I were shocked by Odin and epidemic's knee-jerk responses to defend it, but I'm not.  Typical of the gun crowd.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on September 19, 2013, 03:11:18 PM
Granted, I'm sure the chances some idiot breaking this law may be marginally higher, but if they were generally law abiding before, why wouldn't they continue to be?

Because doing the wrong thing has been made easier. 

Fair enough.

My take is, while the wrong thing could happen anywhere, I wish they could have somehow made it more narrowly focused. I'm guessing here, but I bet the law was instituted not so much so people could carry in bars, but in places where "alcohol is served", which is to include restaurants. I don't know about where you live, but around here, were it not for the new law, going out to dine while carrying would be limited to fast food franchises almost exclusively. Nearly all local and chain restaurants sell booze of one kind or another. Hell, even the Denny's up the road sells booze. But, I can't think of a very easy or definitive way to seperate the dive bar from the high end restaurant in this case.

If we really think about the frequency that people are given the tools to more easily do the wrong thing, it's almost astounding. Including, but not limited to; cigarettes sold in convenience stores, parking lots at bars, having a "legal limit" for drinking and driving, cars and motorcycles that can go well in excess of 75mph, pick-up trucks weighing in at over 4tons, etc. All those things make it easier to do the wrong thing. We just keep hoping that the next idiot that does the wrong thing doesn't affect our lives, or the lives of others.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 19, 2013, 03:22:58 PM
Ok we are in agreement.  So I should not be able to defend myself because some asshole decided to give their kid a gun, and you should not be able to own a car because some asshole decided to leave their kid unattended with the car.

your dodging wearies me.


Not sure what you are trying to say here.  I never suggested a world with no rules.  Just not a nanny state.  Somalia has no laws and I am not in any recommending anarchy.

You absolutely are.  You said: "I don't believe in laws that protect people from stupidity".  But that pretty much covers every law, doesn't it?  What are laws but codified rules to protect society? 

What I said was that I believe laws should not be based on a few assholes who do idiotic things that are already covered by other laws.

No, that is not what you said.  That might be what you meant, but it was not what you said.  If that was what you meant, you should say what you mean.  It would help prevent the perception that you are back pedaling.

No one is suggesting a 5 year old or a 2 year old should be given a gun for their birtday.

I do not think you understand what "no one" means, because obviously someone thought it was a great idea.

Idiotic people with cars are hurting innocent people I am not for banning cars or restricting their use further.  We have sufficeint motorvehicle laws, and we have sufficient gun laws in my opionion.

Back on the cars analogy?  I don't know why you do that.  It is a losing analogy for you.  We regulate cars at a far higher level than guns.  Guns and cars are not equal comparisons.  The primary purpose of a car is transportation.  The primary purpose of guns is destruction.  A better comparison would be guns and TNT.

Plus, I've not mentioned banning anything in this thread.  So again, losing point for you.  They call that a Strawman Argument.

In this thread I've tried to point out the extremely common mistakes with guns and tried to find reasonable laws to keep guns away from people who should not have them.  You and Odin have just reacted in knee-jerk fashion, essentially saying, there is nothing we can do, and all these dead people are the price of our freedom.
 

Accidental death by gun by a child is almost always preventable,

I take it you didn't do the research?  Great.  I'll just ignore you until you do.


 
The United States Of America has a (non fire arm related ) murder rate that exceeds The UK's total murder rate.

Do you think that is a problem we should do something about?  What happens to the rate when you add guns to the mix?   


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate 

was that so hard?

Apparently people will kill themselve in other ways if you remove the gun.

You cannot just look at gross numbers and draw that conclusion.  Sure, they have fewer guns that we do.  But they also drink a lot more alcohol,[1] and eat more bangers and mash.  So, their diet is as likely a factor as anything.

And, those figures aren't even the same year.  2009 US, 2011 UK.


I have empathy for people...

Please.  You are embarrassing yourself.  It is unlikely you are going to convince me, or anyone else on this forum, that you are not a replicant.  And not even a Nexus-6.


So it is your claim that guns are never used defensively?

No.  Your numbers are in question.  Numbers like that have already been called into question in this thread.  I've read Kleck's study and he's fucking bonkers.   Even the low end you give - 800,000 - means that amost 10% of gun owners "defend" themselves every year.  That also means a regular, non-gun toting individual would have the same probability of being in a defense situation every year.  And that is clearly not the case. Or criminals are just picking on gun owners.

I think these numbers are evidence of gun owners' paranoia.  In their minds, threats are everywhere.
 
First off ...

Nope.  Justify it all you want, but you made a monumentally bad decision.  High risk, low reward.  You are the karate guy who walked into central park at night.  You just lack the ability to recognize it.


 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on September 19, 2013, 03:46:54 PM
Regarding the law about not drinking while carrying a firearm...it's also illegal to operate your car after drinking a certain amount of alcohol.  I'm not sure specifically how much it is, but it's not a very high amount.  How many people drive when above the legal limit of alcohol anyway because they assume they're sober enough to drive safely?  According to the Justice Department[1], there were more than a million people arrested for DUI in 2012.

That illustrates the problem with making it legal to carry a firearm into a bar.  I don't think most of those people were career criminals.  In fact, I'll bet that most of them thought of themselves as law-abiding drivers before their arrest.

So, if that many people are willing to break the "don't drive while intoxicated" laws, how many will be willing to break the "don't carry while intoxicated" law, especially now that they can take a gun into a bar?
 1. http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-dui-arrests-per-state/ (http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-dui-arrests-per-state/)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 19, 2013, 05:02:01 PM
Two concealed carry permit holders shot and killed each other in a road rage incident in Michigan.  Just like the Old West except this is real.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 19, 2013, 05:28:57 PM
Two concealed carry permit holders shot and killed each other in a road rage incident in Michigan.  Just like the Old West except this is real.

The Old West was not even the Old West. It was not nearly as lawless and violent as we think from movies. Most people were hardworking dirt farmers who used shotguns for hunting, not for "defense". People did not carry guns all the time or shoot other people for looking at them sideways. Even famous outlaws avoided confrontations that involved gunplay.

Most of the stories about outlaws shooting up a town or gunslingers doing fancy shooting were exaggerations of a few drunken bar brawls. The guntoting cowboy hero was created from dime novels written by people who never went west of the Mississippi. Traveling rodeo shows, movies and tv did the rest.

So, don't blame our modern gun obsession on the US frontier. That would be like saying  the sexual revolution and drug use of the 1970's was caused by rock music.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 20, 2013, 08:26:46 AM
Two concealed carry permit holders shot and killed each other in a road rage incident in Michigan.  Just like the Old West except this is real.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/road_rage-related_shootout_lea.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/michigan-concealed-carry-road-rage-two-dead_n_3956491.html

A bad guy with a gun is only stopped by a good guy with a gun, right?  So who was the bad guy here and why did the good guy die too? 



The Old West was not even the Old West. It was not nearly as lawless and violent as we think from movies.

True, that.  They actually had gun control.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
Quote
Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

...

Ready the fainting couch for gun lovers:
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/01/24/guns-wild-west-48208/
Quote
When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law. They declared that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona — the site of the infamous “Shootout at the OK Corral” — also barred the carrying of guns openly.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 20, 2013, 10:45:47 AM
Granted, I'm sure the chances some idiot breaking this law may be marginally higher, but if they were generally law abiding before, why wouldn't they continue to be?

Because doing the wrong thing has been made easier. 

Look, I'm not saying every gun owner is going to go out to the local bar, get boozed up and start shooting the place up.  And I don't deny that most - by a large majority - gun owners are (or try to be) law abiding.  But as was demonstrated in the forums I linked in the previous post, you don't have to sort through too many gun owners who find one who is willing to bend the rules, play stupid, or ignore the law because he thinks his rights trump everyone else's. 

So, because it is now okay to carry a gun in a bar, people will.  And cases of people - who are otherwise and generally law abiding -  with guns who drink will go up.  And only a tiny fraction of them will be caught.  But it will make a difference.  The more opportunities there are to make a mistake, the more mistakes there will be.  It does not take a lot of alcohol to cause a person to make bad decisions. 

Is it happening now? Sure.  But this gives a whole lot more people a whole lot more opportunity to say to themselves, "eh, one beer with my pals won't kill anyone."  And mos of the time it won't.  Sometimes, it will. 

This was a pretty common sense law.  Repealing it was pretty unnecessary.  I wish I were shocked by Odin and epidemic's knee-jerk responses to defend it, but I'm not.  Typical of the gun crowd.

It is not a knee jerk reaction.  I don't like laws that dont accomplish anything. 

1) You already are not allowed to drink and carry. (the safety aspect is covered.)
2) No one knows if I brought the gun into the resturant that sells booze.  (so the guy who breaks the law is already to break the law)
3) If I did for some reason forget my gun was on me when I went in to hang with my friends as the designated driver and ended up using it to defend my life I am made into a criminal by a useless law.  (The DA will have little alternative but to charge me.)

So the law makes criminals out of innocent people, it does not accomplish the desired task of saving lives, and it is unenforcable generally speaking.


4)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 20, 2013, 11:01:53 AM
It is not a knee jerk reaction.  I don't like laws that dont accomplish anything. 

It is, you just do not have the ability to be introspective and recognize it. 

What does making murder illegal accomplish? 

The rest of your post was either unintelligible or obviously wrong.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: shnozzola on September 20, 2013, 12:51:04 PM
Quote
Spray of bullets went out shortly before 10:15 p.m. Thursday at Cornell Square Park
Quote
Chicago's top police official says that an assault style rifle with high capacity magazine was used in the park shooting that injured 13 people, including a 3-year-old child.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/10-People-Shot-In-South-Side-Park-224517491.html
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on September 20, 2013, 01:21:10 PM
Clearly, some of those people needed to have fired back.  That's how society stays safe, right?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 20, 2013, 02:50:43 PM
I have to take issue with the idea proposed here that people need to have guns to defend their lives. Folks all over the world live quite well without packing firearms. The residents of Vancouver BC, Paris, Tokyo and Stockholm are not being robbed, raped or mowed down in the streets due to the lack of personal weaponry. The foreign students at the college where I teach are shocked that guns are sold at the local Walmart and in neighborhood pawn shops.

I gave the silly example of comparing poison collecting to gun collecting to show how we have this special place in our hearts for firearms, but not other dangerous items. Why not let people carry a bottle of sulfuric acid to throw in the face of an attacker?  At least then you would be less likely to hurt someone in the house next door by accident. How about a small bomb for personal defense? I know that I would feel safer on the road knowing that the person in the next lane might be packing an incendiary device.

In the US we have a very strange relationship with firearms; if you have lived in other similar countries you can probably attest to that. I think we are stuck on myths about our history--heroic pioneers and manly cowboys building America by shooting their way west.  We also have some uniquely US-style cultural values--individualism, independence, freedom, capitalism, materialism, and being anti-government.   

We associate guns with security and freedom--being able to do what we want with our lives. (If I have a gun, I can go anywhere at anytime and feel safe.) And we associate security and freedom with capitalism--being able to buy what we want for any reason. (Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have 10 handguns and 25 shotguns if I can afford them?) We also associate security and freedom with individualism and independence--not having to rely on or worry about other people when we make decisions. (A rancher in Montana should be able to get whatever weapon without having to care about kids getting shot in the puke holes of New York.)

These ideas are so tangled up in the way we view guns that we have a hard time being rational about them. That is why people get so emotional about restricting access to weapons. I have heard people defend gun ownership in terms that in other countries people would use to describe their children or their homeland. It is like if you don't love guns, you hate mom, apple pie and the flag. Even if it could be shown that we could save many lives and a lot of money while increasing safety and security by ditching the 2nd amendment, most Americans would still be against it.

Removing guns from the US landscape would symbolize the loss of things that most Americans like about living in the US. We have to change the way we think about guns before we will be able to do anything about the gun fails. In the future maybe we will have phasers so we can just vaporize the bad guys. Then when they are all gone, we will really be safe.[1]
 1. Just like how the war of terror has brought peace to the Middle East.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on September 20, 2013, 06:10:28 PM
It is not a knee jerk reaction.  I don't like laws that dont accomplish anything.
Look, don't take this personally, but you're acting on a feeling here.  It's been shown in a couple of recent studies that even intelligent people fall prey to misinterpreting things if their feelings (including political feelings) get in the way.  It happens to everyone[1][2] and that's why you need to take a step back and reexamine why you're so adamantly defending your position here.

I want you to stop and seriously think about my responses to these points you raised.  Don't just come right back with an answer, because it'll be based on your gut feelings about guns.  Look at what you want to say and ask yourself why you want to say it.

Quote from: epidemic
1) You already are not allowed to drink and carry. (the safety aspect is covered.)
Earlier in this thread, I cited U.S. Department of Justice statistics which showed that despite the fact that it's illegal to drink and drive, there were more than a million DUI arrests last year.  So my question for you is why you think drinking and carrying would be qualitatively different than drinking and driving.

Quote from: epidemic
2) No one knows if I brought the gun into the resturant that sells booze.  (so the guy who breaks the law is already to break the law)
However, having it be illegal to bring firearms into establishments that sell alcohol makes it less likely that someone who considers themselves law-abiding will bring a gun inside to begin with.  So this law is preventative as much as retributive.  So my question for you is if you think that a preventative law is worthwhile or not, and if not, why it isn't.

Quote from: epidemic
3) If I did for some reason forget my gun was on me when I went in to hang with my friends as the designated driver and ended up using it to defend my life I am made into a criminal by a useless law.  (The DA will have little alternative but to charge me.)
I will admit that there is some validity to this.  However, forgetfulness is not justification for breaking a law, anymore than someone forgetting what the speed limit is justifies repealing speed limit laws, or any other law for that matter.  So my question for you is why you think that forgetfulness is a valid reason to abolish a law.

Quote from: epidemic
o the law makes criminals out of innocent people, it does not accomplish the desired task of saving lives, and it is unenforcable generally speaking.
It does not make criminals out of innocent people, anymore than speed limit laws make criminals out of innocent people, or shoplifting laws make criminals out of innocent people.  If a person is driving 45 or 55 miles in a 35 mile per hour zone because they forgot what the speed limit was, they are breaking the law.  If a person leaves a store with merchandise they haven't paid for because they forgot it was in their pocket, they are breaking the law.  And if a person carries a gun into a bar because they forgot they were carrying it, they are (or were) breaking the law.  Why should forgetfulness justify breaking a law?

It also saved lives via a preventative measure.  At least some people who might have carried guns into a bar or some other place they could buy alcohol probably thought twice about it and decided not to because it would be breaking the law.  There's no way to tell how many of those people, if they ended up getting drunk, might have done something stupid with their gun and ended up being responsible for killing someone.

And finally, it is not unenforceable.  It might be difficult to enforce, depending on the circumstances, but (say) if someone goes into a bar and flashes that they have a gun, it is certainly enforceable then.
 1. I fall prey to it myself unless I'm very careful
 2. For that matter, The Gawd, who is normally very sensible, fell prey to it in the Zimmerman thread and quit the site because several people, myself included, kept pointing out where he was wrong in his belief about what happened.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 21, 2013, 06:55:39 AM
I have to take issue with the idea proposed here that people need to have guns to defend their lives. Folks all over the world live quite well without packing firearms.

So far, I have lived 47 years without the need for my own personal firearm. I have experienced no threats in which I would need a firearm, and very few threats beyond that.


The residents of Vancouver BC, Paris, Tokyo and Stockholm are not being robbed, raped or mowed down in the streets due to the lack of personal weaponry. The foreign students at the college where I teach are shocked that guns are sold at the local Walmart and in neighborhood pawn shops.

Not surprisingly, there are two subsets of voters with a lot of overlap. Those who think everyone should have the right to buy firearms but expect no one to ever use their firearms, and those who think teenagers should not be given prophylactics because if we do give teenagers prophylactics the teenagers will think they have permission to have sex with abandon. Likewise, these groups are confounded by the high birth rates among teenagers who have almost no way to get birth control but they are not the least bit confounded by the high death rate from the proliferation of firearms.


When does ignorance stop being bliss?


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 21, 2013, 08:49:50 AM
(Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have 10 handguns and 25 shotguns if I can afford them?) We also associate security and freedom with individualism and independence--not having to rely on or worry about other people when we make decisions.

I know a man, who lives in a very liberal state with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the US, who has 150 long guns and 250 handguns.  He is a collector.  He has not personally fired most of the guns.  There is little chance any of them will ever be used in a gun crime.  They are kept in a fireproof vault, secured by a bank-vault style door.  He has followed the spirit and letter of the law in obtaining each of these guns.  Should he have to turn in his collection?  Would he be compensated for the value of about $500,000?

Quote
(A rancher in Montana should be able to get whatever weapon without having to care about kids getting shot in the puke holes of New York.)

That is correct.  If you can't see the disconnect between the rancher in Montana and the gang-bangers in Chicago (I said New York, but let's use Chicago, because the problem is worse there), then my cause is lost.

Quote
Even if it could be shown that we could save many lives and a lot of money while increasing safety and security by ditching the 2nd amendment, most Americans would still be against it.

The 2nd Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791.  It's not a new concept.  Yes, there are different weapons available now than there were in 1791.  There are more means of communication than in 1791, and we still have the 1st Amendment.  We have to fight to defend the 1st Amendment against encroachment, such as the recent NSA fiasco.  It doesn't mean we ditch the whole thing, just because things have changed.

If we "ditch[ed] the 2nd Amendment," how would you enforce it?  Since guns are, for the most part, not registered, how would you impose the gun ban?  Would you also ditch the 4th Amendment, and allow the government to search every house to confiscate all the guns.

Let's suppose we banned all magazine capacities over, say, ten rounds, for all weapons - rifles, shotguns, and handguns.  Would that satisfy you?  No weapon would then resemble an "assault weapon," because the ability to fire hundreds of rounds in a short period of time would effectively be curtailed.  Would you then leave the rest of the 2nd Amendment unchanged?

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 21, 2013, 09:03:11 AM
So far, I have lived 47 years without the need for my own personal firearm. I have experienced no threats in which I would need a firearm, and very few threats beyond that.

I fired my first gun at about age 10, under training and direct supervision of my father.  We were hunting doves.
These days, I shoot about 6,000 rounds a year out of a shotgun, almost all at sporting clays.  I haven't hunted in 25 years, at least.  The only things endangered by my guns are evil clays pigeons, some of whom are lucky to escape.

I also have yet to experience any threat that would rise to the level of deadly force, and therefore I have not had to use deadly force.  However, if I were to experience deadly force being used against me or my loved ones, I would not hesitate to defend against it with deadly force.

By the way, I have a CCW, and several handguns, but I rarely carry them.  My opportunities to carry are almost always at night, going out to eat or drink, and I won't take the chance of having alcohol in my system while carrying.

Quote
Not surprisingly, there are two subsets of voters with a lot of overlap. Those who think everyone should have the right to buy firearms but expect no one to ever use their firearms, and those who think teenagers should not be given prophylactics because if we do give teenagers prophylactics the teenagers will think they have permission to have sex with abandon. Likewise, these groups are confounded by the high birth rates among teenagers who have almost no way to get birth control but they are not the least bit confounded by the high death rate from the proliferation of firearms.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not one of the ones who overlap.  I think birth control should be distributed freely, as should sex ed.  I think the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, and especially prophylactics, is tantamount to genocide.

Odin, King of the Gods
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on September 21, 2013, 10:32:37 AM
I also have yet to experience any threat that would rise to the level of deadly force, and therefore I have not had to use deadly force.  However, if I were to experience deadly force being used against me or my loved ones, I would not hesitate to defend against it with deadly force. ...

It's a good thing you never ran into Epidemic and had him think you were stealing something...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: shnozzola on September 21, 2013, 12:12:45 PM
Let's suppose we banned all magazine capacities over, say, ten rounds, for all weapons - rifles, shotguns, and handguns.  Would that satisfy you?

Odin, King of the Gods

Odin,

I can't speak for nogods, but that would satisfy me.  Would it satisfy you?  Or are guns not the real problem?  Is the slippery slope and the government the problem for you?  You have probably addressed this issue in these gun threads, but, just wondering your view on US government?  It 's the same with Obamacare.  Can we as a society attempt policies, realizing that policies that do not work could be changed, because the people of the U.S. are the government?  Or do you consider that foolish and idealistic - are we at the mercy of a government run amuck that is seeking only to get bigger, add laws, and take away freedoms, without the possibility to undo unjust and unnecessary laws?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on September 22, 2013, 06:28:21 AM
interesting take on the US' "gun problem"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter)

this stat if true is nuts

Quote
To absorb the scale of the mayhem, it's worth trying to guess the death toll of all the wars in American history since the War of Independence began in 1775, and follow that by estimating the number killed by firearms in the US since the day that Robert F. Kennedy was shot in 1968 by a .22 Iver-Johnson handgun, wielded by Sirhan Sirhan. The figures from Congressional Research Service, plus recent statistics from icasualties.org, tell us that from the first casualties in the battle of Lexington to recent operations in Afghanistan, the toll is 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.

That 212,994 more Americans lost their lives from firearms in the last 45 years than in all wars involving the US is a staggering fact, particularly when you place it in the context of the safety-conscious, "secondary smoke" obsessions that characterise so much of American life.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 22, 2013, 09:03:37 AM
I wonder if that counts the plethora of wars against Native Americans and if the Native Americans are counted in the total?

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 22, 2013, 09:59:28 AM
I also have yet to experience any threat that would rise to the level of deadly force, and therefore I have not had to use deadly force.  However, if I were to experience deadly force being used against me or my loved ones, I would not hesitate to defend against it with deadly force.

By the way, I have a CCW, and several handguns, but I rarely carry them.  My opportunities to carry are almost always at night, going out to eat or drink, and I won't take the chance of having alcohol in my system while carrying.

I think most people would do anything to defend their family, but what's the point of having all the handguns and the permit if you rarely ever take them out with you?


Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not one of the ones who overlap.  I think birth control should be distributed freely, as should sex ed.  I think the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, and especially prophylactics, is tantamount to genocide.

When did I ever say you were?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 22, 2013, 04:31:00 PM
Screwtape, you'll love this idea. I know I do:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter)

The article asks if the international community should intervene in America's quasi-civil war, that kills 32,000 a year. If a gas attack in Syria rightfully gets people upset, a casualty figure 20x larger should do the same.

Cute thought.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 22, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
Well, right on cue.  The NRA came out today to say if there had been more good guys with guns this would not have happened.  And FOX is already complaining about Obama being too political at the memorial for the Navy Yard deaths.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 22, 2013, 07:56:13 PM
Odin, my point was not about how many guns a person should have or how many rounds they should fire. I am not enough of a gun expert to even propose something like that. I was trying to explore why we in the US think so differently about guns compared to people in other similar countries.

Canada is not very different from the US. It has big cities, isolated rural areas, drug problems, property crime and so on, just like in the US. Canadians are hunters and people there have gun collections. But they do not have a widespread legal right to own a firearm, especially not handguns.  They could change their laws to allow for that, but they don't. They don't seem to feel the need for everyone to have a gun (or several) for protection.

In many countries, there is more of a sense that people are connected to others in their community. The same gun control problem comes up in discussions about national health insurance, about taxes, about paying for roads. We will do things that might make sense on an individual level, but that don't make sense for the whole country. We will do things that hurt ourselves in the long run to keep other people--in our own country-- from getting something we think they don't deserve.

What is a slam-dunk in most countries (everyone is better off if we all have health care or we will get shot less if we don't all have guns) becomes a contentious "me and mine against those other people" fight in the US. I remember reading the international press during Hurricane Katrina, and people in other countries were amazed by the caustic comments they heard about the victims, and that the US president himself did not seem very concerned about his citizens being swept away or dying unattended in parking lots.

On the other hand, there was worldwide mourning after the 9/11 attacks in the US. The French headline said "Today, we are all Americans." I can't imagine a US paper saying anything similar about a terrorist attack in another country, because we would not want to read such a thing. As many people as died on 9/11 have been killed in foreign countries, and it makes hardly a blip on our radar. Who cares about people so far away and so different from us?

In the US we think of ourselves as separate individuals only responsible for ourselves and our own families. It could be that the US is so large and diverse that a rancher in Montana really does not feel any connection to kids in New York-- and vice versa. If I want a gun (or several) for my own reasons, I should not have to concern myself with how that decision might affect anyone else. And the "gun fails" where we kill and hurt each other by accident or stupidity or negligence or anger are the result.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 23, 2013, 10:11:02 AM
The article asks if the international community should intervene in America's quasi-civil war, that kills 32,000 a year. If a gas attack in Syria rightfully gets people upset, a casualty figure 20x larger should do the same.

I've suggested on numerous occasions there are states - Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, etc - that should be invaded by the US.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 23, 2013, 10:55:28 AM
The article asks if the international community should intervene in America's quasi-civil war, that kills 32,000 a year. If a gas attack in Syria rightfully gets people upset, a casualty figure 20x larger should do the same.

I've suggested on numerous occasions there are states - Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, etc - that should be invaded by the US.

I agree on the Texas thing. They're holding jetson and his family hostage.

Our military isn't trained to handle attacks during tornados, so I'd forget about that one. Of course there is neopagan to worry about there. Maybe we can save him when we're coming back from rescuing jetson. Tornados be damned. And if Mississippi were just allowed to sink into the sea, the south would have more room for alligators.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on September 23, 2013, 11:14:49 AM
Has anyone ever noticed that Mississippi is always last in everything?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 23, 2013, 02:50:13 PM
Has anyone ever noticed that Mississippi is always last in everything?

[blatant stereotyping]And proud of it, dammit! All that fancy librul book larnin' the fascist fedral gummint forces on our children will just lead them to Satan. And communist European health care. And free gay abortions. Next you'll take away our guns and give them to illegal immigrant anchor babies. Now git outta my way. I need to drive mama to the post office to pick up her disability check.... [blatant stereotype ends]

If the progressive northern states did not subsidize the south with our tax dollars, it would be ranking somewhere between Haiti and Afghanistan. Let the sane people out, and then secede, already! &)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 24, 2013, 07:42:15 AM
If this is not a failure of law, nothing is.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/concealed-carry-permit-guns-utah
Quote
How I Got Licensed to Carry a Concealed Gun in 32 States by Barely Trying
I was clueless, hung over, and totally worthless with a firearm. Four hours later, I was officially qualified to pack heat.

According to the state of Utah, I earned the right to carry a concealed handgun on a Saturday morning in a suburban shopping center outside Baltimore. Toward the back, next to a pawnshop and White Trash Matt's tattoo parlor, is the global headquarters of Dukes Defense World, a mom-and-pop firearms instruction shop certified by the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification to teach nonresidents firearm safety as a prerequisite for obtaining a concealed-carry permit.

continued...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 24, 2013, 08:33:20 AM
Yep, we have people come up to Montana from Utah and give classes so that Montana residents can legally carry concealed weapons with a Utah license. It is possible to get a Montana license, I assume, but it is so easy to get a Utah permit that many choose that route. Also, they like it because the permit lets them carry in so many other states. I don't know if a Montana permit has similar benefits.

I'm somewhat fearful that if I ask around I'll get shot.  :(

(That's a joke, gun lovers. Don't shoot me for it.)

When loopholes are so big that blind hunters can hit the broadside of a barn through them, something is wrong.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 24, 2013, 01:41:21 PM
latest gun fail.  #36 chronicles the antics of 47 idiots.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/23/1239006/-GunFAIL-XXXVI

and apparently 46 guns were confiscated by TSA.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on September 24, 2013, 02:53:49 PM
latest gun fail.  #36 chronicles the antics of 47 idiots.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/23/1239006/-GunFAIL-XXXVI

and apparently 46 guns were confiscated by TSA.

I like this report, it does not phase me though.  How many kids were killed in pools, on bicycles, falling down stairs...   This is a country of 315 million people,  there are bound to be some idiots in the lot amongst the responsible.  You might call the gun owner an idiot but most of them are responsible.

I am sorry for the loss of your kids but I am not giving up my gun which poses no threat to either my kids nor yours.  I treat my gun as if it is loaded at all times. I don't leave it in a place where my 5 year old can gain access to it.  I have 4 lines of defense on my guns.

1) Education, my 5 year old knows of the gun but has been trained in it's danger (not sufficient but it adds a level of security both at home and when at an irresponsible persons house) 
2) Proximity, my gun is not in a place where my child can access it (kids are tricky though, they can surprise you in their resourcefullness.)
3) Physical deterrent, I have a trigger gard on it.
4) It is not loaded. (i know it is always loaded but I have it unloaded as much as possible)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 24, 2013, 03:09:59 PM
I like this report, it does not phase me though. 

But being a human being with empathy...

I think you should at least be honest with yourself.  Look in the mirror and admit you don't have empathy.  Because you just don't.

You might call the gun owner an idiot but most of them are responsible.

I called these specific gun owners idiots, not all gun owners.  And I did acknowledge most gun owners are responsible.  But why do the rest of us have to pay the price for the irresponsible ones?  It would seem to me that you would want the irresponsible ones disarmed forthwith.

I am sorry for the loss of your kids but...

And apology followed by "but" negates the apology.  It means "I'm not actually sorry".  Which fits right in with your overall approach to guns.  You do not care how they impact anyone but you.  Just admit it.


1) Education,...

Don't care.  I would not trust you with scissors, let alone a firearm.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 24, 2013, 03:26:10 PM
Pools, stairs and bicycles are not designed to be used to kill.  Guns are made intentionally to fire a metal projectile with enough force to destroy things that it hits. You could use a pool to wash your dishes, and you could use a gun as a hammer, I suppose. But that is not what they are primarily designed for.

Maybe people should be granted the legal right to carry small bottles of smallpox virus, sulfuric acid or sarin gas for protection (or just to feel like a BAMF) if they promise to keep the bottles secure and away from kids and bad people. No training in medicine or chemistry needed, just show that you are not currently crazy or a criminal. I can't imagine what might go wrong.  :P

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 25, 2013, 09:57:06 AM
sure to be a gun fail next week.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elizabeth-crisp/police-missouri-house-staffer-left-loaded-gun-in-capitol-restroom/article_66a26467-f6c6-5f6d-8c43-86f6451edbc1.html

Quote
A Missouri House staffer reportedly left a loaded gun in a public restroom in the state Capitol last week.

continued...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 25, 2013, 10:35:51 AM
I have a professor colleague who is a cowgirl rancher type. She looks like someone from the 1950's in Mad Men type fitted suits during the workweek, and sh!tkicker cowboy boots and jeans on her days off.

She has carries a gun her husband gave her for protection, no surprise there. She is evidently a pretty good shot and goes to ranges and knows all the rules and regs. Well, she is on the terrorist watch list now, because she forgot she had her loaded gun in her purse as she went through the security line at the airport to board a plane for Europe.

This woman is no idiot, has traveled all over the world. And carried a loaded gun into the airport. In real life, people are not perfect superheroes or James Bond. In real life, perfectly normal, intelligent people get distracted, lose their cars in the parking lot, drop their cell phones in the toilet, leave their house keys at the bank, set fire to the dishtowel, and forget where they put the gun.

I know another guy who is a conservative libertarian right wing lunatic. He is building a bunker to hide his family in when the Muslims arrive to take over. He says things like, "We are at war!" He hunts deer and used to be a police officer. He has a lot of guns. He is also evidently a pretty good shot and goes to ranges and knows all the rules and regs. I am sure there is nothing to worry about there.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on September 25, 2013, 10:38:03 AM
sure to be a gun fail next week.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elizabeth-crisp/police-missouri-house-staffer-left-loaded-gun-in-capitol-restroom/article_66a26467-f6c6-5f6d-8c43-86f6451edbc1.html

Quote
A Missouri House staffer reportedly left a loaded gun in a public restroom in the state Capitol last week.

continued...

Hey, you can't blame a guy for wanting to protect himself from a legislative body!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on September 25, 2013, 02:28:02 PM
Don't know if Screwtape posted this yet but http://Chron.com/news/us/article/Gun-group-plans-shotgun-giveaway-in-central-fla-4841561.php

(fixed the link, auto-check changed a word)

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 25, 2013, 06:53:47 PM
This woman is no idiot, has traveled all over the world. And carried a loaded gun into the airport. In real life, people are not perfect superheroes or James Bond. In real life, perfectly normal, intelligent people get distracted, lose their cars in the parking lot, drop their cell phones in the toilet, leave their house keys at the bank, set fire to the dishtowel, and forget where they put the gun.

I still don't understand this as I look through everything before I go to the airport to see what I should or shouldn't have in my bags. I also empty my luggage when I arrive home, as well.

Perhaps my OCD behavior is why I don't have things pulled out of my bags.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on September 26, 2013, 07:40:56 AM
This woman is no idiot,

That is debatable.  There are a couple of ways we can look at people, with regards to idiocy.  You could think some people are idiots, while others are not.  Or you could think that and that sometimes everyone is capable of occasional idiocy or brilliance.  Or you could think everyone is an idiot, and some of us do a fair job masquerading as smart people, but the idiocy inevitably slips out.   That last is my opinion on the matter. 


And carried a loaded gun into the airport.

Idiot who masquerades as a smart person, with her idiocy slipping out.

In real life, people are not perfect superheroes or James Bond. In real life, perfectly normal, intelligent people get distracted, lose their cars in the parking lot, drop their cell phones in the toilet, leave their house keys at the bank, set fire to the dishtowel, and forget where they put the gun.

Which is one of the reasons why I think people should not be walking around with guns in public. 

I know another guy who is a conservative libertarian right wing lunatic. He is building a bunker to hide his family in when the Muslims arrive to take over. He says things like, "We are at war!" He hunts deer and used to be a police officer. He has a lot of guns. He is also evidently a pretty good shot and goes to ranges and knows all the rules and regs. I am sure there is nothing to worry about there.

Really, mental illness is a much bigger problem than anyone knows.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Odin on September 26, 2013, 07:57:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia4csoQLvGY
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on September 26, 2013, 02:27:27 PM
This woman is no idiot, has traveled all over the world. And carried a loaded gun into the airport. In real life, people are not perfect superheroes or James Bond. In real life, perfectly normal, intelligent people get distracted, lose their cars in the parking lot, drop their cell phones in the toilet, leave their house keys at the bank, set fire to the dishtowel, and forget where they put the gun.

I still don't understand this as I look through everything before I go to the airport to see what I should or shouldn't have in my bags. I also empty my luggage when I arrive home, as well.

Perhaps my OCD behavior is why I don't have things pulled out of my bags.

The gun was in her purse, which she clearly does not empty before every trip. Maybe she does now..... :P
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on September 29, 2013, 09:46:13 AM
Here is a gun FAIL with a positive outcome.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/09/27/mcdonalds-gun-malfunction-berman-newday.cnn.html

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 08, 2013, 07:14:22 AM
Woman Struck by Bullet While Watching Soccer Game (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Woman-Struck-by-Bullet-While-Watching-Soccer-Game-226776901.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand)

Quote
Police say a 43-year-old Virginia woman was struck by a small-caliber round while watching her child's soccer game Sunday evening.

And there was no sound?  Maybe she was a terrorist for whom there were orders to kill and the perpetrator used a silencer?  Hahaha. No.  Who knows? The police don't. Not yet.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on October 08, 2013, 07:17:12 AM
overdue gun fail 38

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1242318/-GunFAIL-XXXVIII
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 08, 2013, 11:37:26 AM
overdue gun fail 38

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/06/1242318/-GunFAIL-XXXVIII


#28 La Plata, MD (I pay closer attention when it is my home state) ... a child gets into the family car, finds a 9mm under a seat and fires it but just not at the right angle to blow his brains out.

The people I have known in my life who keep loaded pistols underneath the front seats of their cars are redneck yahoos who think that the world is comin' to get 'em. Otherwise, they have done something to cause the world to come after them. Oh, yeah, and let's keep a kid around in that kind of environment.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on October 08, 2013, 11:57:15 AM
I love #30. 
http://columbustelegram.com/news/local/rural-columbus-man-charged-after-shooting-neighbor/article_a64343ee-5d2d-520e-b799-87769539de4b.html
Quote
According to the Platte County Sheriff’s Office, 30-year-old Trent Kowalski was conducting target practice inside his Collegeview Trailer Park residence around 10:45 p.m. Thursday when the accident occurred.

The sheriff’s office says Kowalski was shooting a .22-caliber rifle inside his home at 6034 55th St. No. 545 when a bullet exited the residence and struck 57-year-old Mark Foxvog in the leg.


He was target shooting inside his trailer. 

#23 is also pretty relevant.  for all those kooks who want to arm teachers, here is a school security guard who pulls his gun on a student.  The student then takes his gun and leaves.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/HISD--Suspect-snatches-HISD-police-officers-gun-during-traffic-stop-flees-226138391.html
He's lucky the kid didn't shoot him with it.  Now, imagine teachers with guns. 

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on October 08, 2013, 12:10:16 PM
Blah.  I skipped right over gun fail #37
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/29/1240595/-GunFAIL-XXXVII

Quote
Strange week this time around. Not atypical in terms of volume or even the kinds of accidents we saw. But odd in small ways. Topping the stats this week: six "home invasion" shootings, four hunting accidents, three gun cleaning accidents, three cops and/or security guards involved in accidents, and three accidents while target shooting. In a somewhat more unusual count, this week saw three men allegedly shoot their wives by accident. How's that for "protecting the family" with your guns?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Dante on October 08, 2013, 12:31:47 PM
Blah.  I skipped right over gun fail #37
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/29/1240595/-GunFAIL-XXXVII

Quote
In a somewhat more unusual count, this week saw three men allegedly shoot their wives by accident.

It would read better as "Three men shot their wives, allegedly by accident."

Yeah, an accident. That's the ticket.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 11, 2013, 07:37:09 PM
If you live in South Carolina and you have a firearm, you can shoot at random people who travel up and down your street (http://raniakhalek.com/2013/10/10/south-carolina-grants-stand-your-ground-immunity-to-white-man-who-killed-unarmed-black-teen/). They don't have to provide any direct threat to you, but as long as you feel threatened, it's acceptable.


South Carolina Man Gets Off Thanks To ‘Stand Your Ground’ After Shooting And Killing Innocent Bystander (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/10/11/2769631/south-carolina-stand-ground/)

Quote
On Wednesday, a South Carolina judge granted immunity from prosecution to a man who shot and killed an innocent bystander during a botched confrontation with a group of teenagers. The judge relied on the state’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.



Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on October 11, 2013, 07:40:52 PM
"Are you a serial killer? You are! well, as long as the people you murdered for your own demented pleasure frightened you at some point, well: the "STAND YOUR GROUND LAW" will set you free! Come one, come all to the excitement of murder!

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on October 11, 2013, 07:51:54 PM
One time in San Francisco, I saw a man leaning out of an apartment window, screaming incoherently and aiming what appeared to be a real gun at passers-by. He was certainly acting as if he was feeling threatened. If he had fired it, I might have been killed. Little did I know that his actions would someday be completely legal. What a country. :-\
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on October 11, 2013, 10:29:24 PM
One time in San Francisco, I saw a man leaning out of an apartment window, screaming incoherently and aiming what appeared to be a real gun at passers-by. He was certainly acting as if he was feeling threatened. If he had fired it, I might have been killed. Little did I know that his actions would someday be completely legal. What a country. :-\

Next thing you know women (or young girls) who get raped will have to marry their rapists.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 12, 2013, 06:34:35 PM
Or in Kentucky ... where, oddly, someone was arrested for pulling a gun and using it. I guess you can't fire a gun from inside your car, but you can fire at a car.

Doctor Shooter (http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/10/02/extreme-road-rage-brown-newday.cnn.html)

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on October 14, 2013, 11:14:25 AM
I find it intersting he was charged with wanton endangerment and not, say, attempted murder.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on October 16, 2013, 08:18:36 AM
Gunfail 39  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/14/1244525/-GunFAIL-XXXIX

5 cops involved in gun stupidity.

"An off-duty correction officer accidentally shot himself and a colleague..." http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Correction-Officer-Shoots-Himself-Colleague-Brooklyn-Gas-Station-227439281.html

Oh. My. Glob.
Quote
The attorney for the police chief suspended for firing guns stopped his questions when the metal clattered against the concrete.

The termination hearing for former Chief Mark Kessler that had been going on for more than 90 minutes stopped. The crowd in the cramped borough building turned its attention to Dave Zimmerman, one of Kessler's supporters, who leaned over to pick his pistol up off the floor.

"It fell out of its holster," Zimmerman told the room, standing 2 feet behind Kessler and his lawyer, Joseph Nahas.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/10/gilberton_kessler_gun_control.html
The photos are great.  Biker hillbillies with guns and star spangled bandanas.  BTW, this cop made himself famous a few months ago with his bombastic youtube videos where he was shooting guns and kind of implying he wanted to shoot the president.

"Horn Lake police say the gun of a Tunica County sheriff's deputy, who received an apparently self-inflicted wound, has disappeared from the scene."
http://www.newstimes.com/news/crime/article/Gun-missing-after-accidentally-shooting-4887129.php

"Alldredge would not comment on who is believed to have shot the deputy, or whether he is believed to have shot himself. About 10 deputies were target shooting at the range for their quarterly firearms qualifications."
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56970497-78/alldredge-shot-deputy-believed.html.csp

"An off-duty La Habra police officer was shot with his own weapon early Saturday during a fight after a traffic accident on the 5 Freeway in Castaic"
http://www.policeone.com/off-duty/articles/6500230-Off-duty-Calif-cop-shot-with-own-gun/
As the comments suggest, something is fishy here.

"The thief took a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, two ammunition magazines for it, a laptop and a camera and lenses, all belonging to the Oxford Police Department,"
http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/butler-county/police-still-looking-for-ar15-rifle-stolen-from-officers-car/-/13601510/22373126/-/iy6pwu/-/index.html
stolen from the unmarked police car.


Quote
The man who police believe is responsible for a Monday night shooting also injured himself during the incident and checked himself into the hospital for treatment less than three hours later.
...
Jones had wounds to his scrotum and foot...
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/oct/08/no-headline---shooting/
owie.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on October 17, 2013, 04:32:55 PM
Today in class we were discussing differences between the US and Canada. The fact that Canadians don't have "gun rights" came up.[1] I pointed out that they still have lots of property crime, like car theft, but don't shoot each other very often since there are not so many guns around.

A young guy opined, in true blue 'Murica fashion, that Canada would have less property crime if they all carried guns there. Uh. Yeah. That is why the US is crime-free--we all got GUNS! Tea Party logic in a nutshell?
 1. Without personal arsenals of firearms, how can they hope to keep their government from becoming a tyranny, forcing health care and college educations down their throats?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 19, 2013, 05:22:56 PM
Pre-gun fail ... kinda ..

Gaithersburg teen arrested on drug, firearm charges (http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/10/gaithersburg-teen-arrested-on-drug-firearm-charges-95597.html)

Quote
The Friday before, Montgomery County Police SWAT team members, Fire Arms Investigation Unit members, and Special Investigations detectives descended on the Gettier's home on Triple Crown Road. Detectives had been casing the home since July. Inside, they found Darel Gettier armed with two handguns, a stash of 43 other firearms, and seven people, five of them minors, smoking marijuana. One of them, according to charging documents, was Gettier's 16-year old son, Ethan.


 ... *sigh* ... kids these days .... tsk tsk.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on October 19, 2013, 06:11:26 PM
Pre-gun fail ... kinda ..

Gaithersburg teen arrested on drug, firearm charges (http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/10/gaithersburg-teen-arrested-on-drug-firearm-charges-95597.html)

Quote
The Friday before, Montgomery County Police SWAT team members, Fire Arms Investigation Unit members, and Special Investigations detectives descended on the Gettier's home on Triple Crown Road. Detectives had been casing the home since July. Inside, they found Darel Gettier armed with two handguns, a stash of 43 other firearms, and seven people, five of them minors, smoking marijuana. One of them, according to charging documents, was Gettier's 16-year old son, Ethan.


 ... *sigh* ... kids these days .... tsk tsk.

If only they had been named Yusuf and Achmed instead of Darel and Ethan....
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on October 22, 2013, 12:28:00 PM
gunfail 40
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/19/1246961/-GunFAIL-XL

“During the period from September 27th through October 17th, encompassing the shutdown and the few days prior to it, the TSA found a whopping 99 guns on passengers attempting to board flights at airports around the country”

perhaps the best one:
Quote
Officers shot a man at his North Austin home on Friday after he and his wife struggled over an assault rifle and a stray bullet struck a neighbor in the leg,
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/officials-non-fatal-police-shooting-under-investig/nbRpN/

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 23, 2013, 05:51:16 AM
If you live in Texas, make sure your babysitter isn't packin' heat ...

5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21084041-5-year-old-texas-boy-accidentally-kills-himself-with-napping-babysitters-gun?lite)

Quote
The sheriff's office said Ringhardt, who lives with the boy's family, left her semiautomatic .40-caliber handgun on a coffee table when she went into a bedroom to take a nap Monday afternoon. When she woke up, she couldn't immediately find the boy, identified as John Read, according to the sheriff's office. She eventually discovered him dead in the living room, it said.

...  because we all know that being a babysitter in Texas is fraught with danger. As a consequence, so is being babysat.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on October 23, 2013, 10:58:19 AM
Sounds flimsy. Didn't get woken up by the gunshot?

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on October 23, 2013, 03:27:25 PM
Sounds flimsy. Didn't get woken up by the gunshot?

-Nam

Maybe it was a really big house? You should not be taking a nap in a different room if you are babysitting a child. She was actually babysitting her gun, and not doing a very good job of it. I would not be surprised if alcohol and/or drugs are involved. :?

Added info--I just read the article. So sad. Turns out the babysitter was a 19 year old girl who was also watching a 6 month old baby. And had a loaded gun because she was afraid of being in the house with the kids alone. Did she even know how to properly use a gun?

There was no phone, so she carried both the wounded child and the baby down the street to the grandmother's house to call 911.

How can anyone read that and think that family was better off with a gun around than not? How about selling the gun at the pawn shop and buying a phone so you can get help if something bad (and not easily fixable with gunplay) happens? What was this girl supposed to do if one of the kids fell and hit its head or stopped breathing--shoot at it?

That is such a tragedy for the entire family. Nobody involved will ever get over it. But "gun rights" trump everything. :(
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 24, 2013, 10:29:54 AM
Gun culture ... you win some, you lose some ...

Boy with toy gun shot and killed by Calif. deputies (http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/calif-sheriffs-deputies-shoot-kill-13-year-old?gt1=51501)

Quote
SANTA ROSA, Calif. — A Northern California community is anguished over the fatal police shooting of a popular, 13-year-old boy who had been carrying a pellet gun that looked like an assault rifle.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on October 24, 2013, 04:40:03 PM
Gun culture ... you win some, you lose some ...

Boy with toy gun shot and killed by Calif. deputies (http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/calif-sheriffs-deputies-shoot-kill-13-year-old?gt1=51501)

Quote
SANTA ROSA, Calif. — A Northern California community is anguished over the fatal police shooting of a popular, 13-year-old boy who had been carrying a pellet gun that looked like an assault rifle.



Did they ask him to put it down first? That's my only question.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on October 24, 2013, 05:04:50 PM
Apparently so:

Quote
Sonoma County sheriff's deputies had repeatedly asked the boy, Andy Lopez, to drop the weapon, but instead he raised it in their direction, police said at a news conference Wednesday.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on October 24, 2013, 05:38:42 PM
Apparently so:

Quote
Sonoma County sheriff's deputies had repeatedly asked the boy, Andy Lopez, to drop the weapon, but instead he raised it in their direction, police said at a news conference Wednesday.

Sounds like suicide-by-cop.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on October 24, 2013, 05:55:01 PM
...according to the cops.  More like suicide by stupidity though, if their account is true.  There's no indication the kid actually wanted to die.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 25, 2013, 05:04:24 AM
I always make sure to have my hunting rifle next to me when I start taking a new pain medication because, well, you just never know when a deer or bear might show up in the parking lot and you need to kill it.

Police surround unconscious man with rifle (http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/crime_and_justice/article_86d5f42b-b399-598f-aa4d-fbfab4c00447.html)

Quote
Guns were drawn, a SWAT team was in position, and a helicopter was hovering above Walkersville early Thursday afternoon.

A report of a person in a vehicle with a gun turned out to be a man next to a hunting rifle who had lost consciousness after taking a newly prescribed pain medication, Maryland State Police said.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on October 25, 2013, 06:43:24 PM
At least, if he had started seeing gigantic pink and green plaid flying banana slugs while on that medication, he would have been able to take those suckers right out! You can't be too careful these days. And good eating? Hell yeah!  :P

I am watching A Beautiful Mind--fantastic movie. But that mentally ill genius math professor should have been heavily armed, so he could have taken out those Soviet agents when they came bursting into his lecture hall. Amirite?  &)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on October 30, 2013, 08:35:55 AM
gun fail 41
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/29/1248982/-GunFAIL-XLI

there is a link to a revealing conversation on a gun forum.  A guy who had been carrying at work accidentally discharged his gun in the mens room.  http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1545936_how_has_your_day_been_so_far___I_just_had_a_ND_in_the_bathroom_at_the_office_UPDATE_OP.html&page=1

I find it sad how many people are willing to cut him slack for doing a boneheaded thing.  I find it criminal how many people counsel him to keep the police out of it.  If I were a gun owner, I would not want this idiot carrying.  If I worked with him, I would be looking for a new job if he was not fired.  Heh.  Fired.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on October 30, 2013, 02:43:16 PM
^^^^It shows that the gun lobby has done their job. Gun ownership--but not food or medical care-- as our basic human right as an American. We would rather let stupid people have guns than take a chance that someone "might need one and not be able to get one". When we don't even value our own safety. &)

I wonder how the pro-gun people feel about illegal immigrants owning guns.....  :?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on October 30, 2013, 03:09:51 PM
So you are at work and some idiot discharges a gun in the men's room.  The reaction is:
Quote
Quote
maybe everyone will just laugh about it and move on.

they have, I am not in trouble at all, even the building owner has laughing about it when he was looking at the tile.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1545936_how_has_your_day_been_so_far___I_just_had_a_ND_in_the_bathroom_at_the_office_UPDATE_OP.html&page=3#i43361526


do you still want to work there?


edit - link added

edit - I am happy about the more scoldy type of responses.  However, I don't think any of them are severe enough and they are too much in the minority.

edit - it took until page 5 to get someone to call this fool out for being negligent and suggesting he take responsibility. Everyone else is all "so glad no one is hurt and you still have your job"  I would be all "you fcking imbicile, I hope they fire you, arrest you and take your children away." 

edit - famous last words on page  9:
Quote
NEVER thought this would happen to me.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1545936_how_has_your_day_been_so_far___I_just_had_a_ND_in_the_bathroom_at_the_office_UPDATE_OP.html&page=9#i43366368

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on October 30, 2013, 07:54:49 PM
do you still want to work there?


I have never worked in a place where employees can bring guns to work every day, and I have no desire to do so. Obviously, I do not work in law enforcement or corrections, and unless I worked at a gun range I cannot imagine a need to bring a gun to work everyday.


It shows that the gun lobby has done their job. Gun ownership--but not food or medical care-- as our basic human right as an American.

Religion and guns go together well -- the advocates of both rely on fear to perpetuate their beliefs.

I don't know why some Americans are so in fear of their lives that they are compelled to bring guns to work and risk shooting someone. That is just asinine.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 01, 2013, 04:47:45 PM
We don't need background checks for the sale of guns, person-to-person. Nope, not at all. I see a very proud Merkin.

(http://media.nbcwashington.com/images/654*368/micahel+bailey.jpg) (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/One-Shot-in-Fredericksburg-Police-on-Scene-230148381.html)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 01, 2013, 05:22:46 PM
Let's do that background check thing, why don't we?
White- check.
US citizen- check.
Male- check.
Batsh!t crazy- check.

He looks just fine to me. Sell him some guns and ammo. :P
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 01, 2013, 05:31:15 PM
Harford County police identify man who ran from authorities after traffic stop (http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/crime_checker/harford_county_crime/harford-county-police-identify-man-who-ran-from-authorities-after-traffic-stop)

Quote
Maryland Transportation Authority Police have identified a 22-year-old North Carolina man as the person killed in Harford County after running from police who discovered guns in the trunk of a rental car that he was driving.

The trunk of a rental car is a very convenient place to store your rifles. And, while attempting to protect your rifles, you run across I-95 to distract the police and, yet, die ... by the physics of a larger, conspicuous mass traveling about 1/60th the speed of a bullet.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on November 06, 2013, 03:17:01 PM
We don't need background checks for the sale of guns, person-to-person. Nope, not at all. I see a very proud Merkin.

(http://media.nbcwashington.com/images/654*368/micahel+bailey.jpg) (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/One-Shot-in-Fredericksburg-Police-on-Scene-230148381.html)

would he have failed a background check?

Would he have failed a background check at the time he purchased his rifle?



PS person to person or as a dealer I would have sold my gun to this guy:)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on November 06, 2013, 03:22:52 PM
do you still want to work there?


I have never worked in a place where employees can bring guns to work every day, and I have no desire to do so. Obviously, I do not work in law enforcement or corrections, and unless I worked at a gun range I cannot imagine a need to bring a gun to work everyday.


It shows that the gun lobby has done their job. Gun ownership--but not food or medical care-- as our basic human right as an American.

Religion and guns go together well -- the advocates of both rely on fear to perpetuate their beliefs.

I don't know why some Americans are so in fear of their lives that they are compelled to bring guns to work and risk shooting someone. That is just asinine.

I don't feel compelled to bring a gun to work currently.   However the guys who drive into seedy neighborhoods in the middle of the night to do their jobs might be advised to do so.  My old company used to send people into the worst parts of NYC to service broken cell sites in the middle of the night with thousands of dollars in equipment.  One car was shot, one guy was mugged.    in a team of 10 people that probably would count as odds high enough for me to bring a gun with me.

your last comment is asinine as well. 

Bringing my gun to work would not make me risk shooting a coworker.  Well that is unless said coworker was trying to kill me.  But then I would not say that was risking shooting a coworker.   

My guns simply do not risk people when i carry them or even when I use them.  If you are risking accidentally shooting someone you are doing something wrong.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 06, 2013, 04:01:12 PM
There are certainly some jobs and some environments where people are at risk of being attacked or robbed. People in those situations might want to learn how to use a gun.

Or not. Guns are also valuable and worth stealing. Another expensive piece of equipment for the bad guys to try to take.

I never carried a gun when I was social worker in one of the most dangerous housing projects in the country. There were plenty of guns around, mainly in the hands of youth who had no idea how to use them. I did not need to get into a shootout with a crazy 13-year-old over the contents of my purse--the money is his. 

But if someone had physically assaulted me, I would have been ready to defend myself. Just not with a gun. I studied martial arts and I carried a knife instead.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 06, 2013, 04:43:18 PM
your last comment is asinine as well. 

Why?  He was commenting on my post which referenced an incident where some jack-hole brought his gun to work and it accidentally discharged through his own negligence.  Someone could easily have been hurt.  It was pure luck no one was.

However the guys who drive into seedy neighborhoods in the middle of the night to do their jobs might be advised to do so.

I see that as their employer's responsibility to make sure they are safe.  It ridiculous to tell them, "go into this war zone and make sure you bring a gun."  Nope.  That was not part of the employment agreement.  You want me to go somewhere dangerous, you provide security as well.  That is as stupid as saying teachers should be armed so they can prevent school shootings. jesus TF christ, aren't they responsible for enough that we don't need to pile that on top as well?

Bringing my gun to work would not make me risk shooting a coworker.

I don't think that was the proposition.  I think the proposition is, if someone brings a gun to work, the odds go up of anyone he or she works with being shot.  You cannot be shot at work by a gun that is not there.  Likewise, you can be shot by someone who did not mean to shoot you.  (the whole premise of this thread)

My guns simply do not risk people when i carry them or even when I use them.  If you are risking accidentally shooting someone you are doing something wrong.

Yeah, that is the whole point of this thread.  Things go wrong.   More frequently than gun-people, like yourself, would like to admit.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 06, 2013, 07:23:46 PM
your last comment is asinine as well. 

Why?  He was commenting on my post which referenced an incident where some jack-hole brought his gun to work and it accidentally discharged through his own negligence.  Someone could easily have been hurt.  It was pure luck no one was.

While it may be my opinion, it is not asinine. The constant desire to carry a weapon is based on the fear that one may need such a weapon. Given that Americans experience relatively low rates of crime, the compelling desire to carry a firearm can only be attributed to fear. Inordinate fear. I am over 45 years old and the closest I have been to needing protection was when my car was vandalized in 1989 (and that happened in the middle of the night while I was cozy in my bed while my car was being jacked up by vandals in the parking lot outside). I have entered the neighborhoods of West Baltimore without the assistance of a firearm. There are people who cannot imagine traveling the suburbs without a firearm, yet I enter West Baltimore without one. Am I stupid? Maybe. But I have not been bothered by anyone.

I am not off the mark in observing that both religion and guns rely on fear for the perpetuation of each. If people were not in fear of something, they would not need either guns or religion. While some people may have guns for fun, the ones who need a gun for conceal carry are definitely in fear of something.        What, exactly?


However the guys who drive into seedy neighborhoods in the middle of the night to do their jobs might be advised to do so.

I see that as their employer's responsibility to make sure they are safe.  It ridiculous to tell them, "go into this war zone and make sure you bring a gun."  Nope.  That was not part of the employment agreement.  You want me to go somewhere dangerous, you provide security as well. 

I work for an insurance company. Our regional employees numbered about 3,000 at one point. There were about 5 employees who were required to qualify for conceal carry permits, and were required to obtain them in order to have their specific jobs (the job postings themselves stipulated the carrying of firearms). Their jobs were to investigate insurance crimes. They were asked to deal with difficult people in dangerous situations and the only way the company had to protect those employees when they were on their own was to have the employees be trained to use firearms and to carry them at all times. THOSE employees, and only THOSE employees ever carried firearms or were even allowed to carry firearms into any company building. Nearly every time one of THOSE employees came into one of our buildings, they left their firearms in the company cars. It was rare for them to bring them inside. Certainly, they were allowed to do so by their job description, but they often felt that it was unwise to do so.

That particular requirement was eliminated from their job duties (only about 5 employees) about 10-15 years ago, mostly because it was deemed too risky for them and for their fellow employees on the rare occasions they entered company-owned facilities.

I was surprised to learn that a few (very few) employees were not only expected to carry firearms but were required to do so. However, it was out of an abundance of caution. It was also out of an abundance of caution that the practice was discontinued.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 07, 2013, 08:50:45 AM
There were about 5 employees who were required to qualify for conceal carry permits, and were required to obtain them in order to have their specific jobs (the job postings themselves stipulated the carrying of firearms).

Ah, well, that is a little different than what I was talking about.  I can see that as a requirement for some jobs.  Not for "repairman", which is what epidemic seemed to be describing.  And for those jobs it is communicated as a requirement up front.  And I would imagine it pays a little more for that. 



 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 08, 2013, 11:59:04 AM
Ah, well, that is a little different than what I was talking about.  I can see that as a requirement for some jobs.  Not for "repairman", which is what epidemic seemed to be describing.  And for those jobs it is communicated as a requirement up front.  And I would imagine it pays a little more for that.

It didn't pay a lot more (at least in my opinion), but the company was far more liberal with leave time for those employees. They didn't want them being stressed out.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 08, 2013, 12:14:15 PM
should be in next week's gun fail:

responsible gun owner accidentally shoots another while hunting Big Foot.
http://www.newson6.com/story/23863004/rogers-county-makes-arrest
Really.

Quote
Deputies also arrested Perry Don James, Pineda's father-in-law. James threw his son-in-law's gun in a pond on the property because he is a convicted felon and was afraid to have the gun on his property, Walton said.
...
"The aggravating part of this whole deal is that their dishonesty wasted several man hours of not only the Rogers County Sheriff's Office, but our partners at the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office," Walton said.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: jaimehlers on November 08, 2013, 12:25:10 PM
I would hardly call people who lied about the circumstances behind shooting their friend "responsible gun owners".  Certainly not when one of them actually threw a gun into a pond because they were a convicted felon who wasn't legally allowed to have guns on their property.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 08, 2013, 06:19:51 PM
^^^Well they were responsible right up until they weren't.  :?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on November 08, 2013, 08:58:17 PM
should be in next week's gun fail:

responsible gun owner accidentally shoots another while hunting Big Foot.
http://www.newson6.com/story/23863004/rogers-county-makes-arrest
Really.

Quote
Deputies also arrested Perry Don James, Pineda's father-in-law. James threw his son-in-law's gun in a pond on the property because he is a convicted felon and was afraid to have the gun on his property, Walton said.
...
"The aggravating part of this whole deal is that their dishonesty wasted several man hours of not only the Rogers County Sheriff's Office, but our partners at the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office," Walton said.

Now that is funny in so many ways.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 08, 2013, 11:17:51 PM
I would hardly call people who lied about the circumstances behind shooting their friend "responsible gun owners". 

That's the thing.  It is hard to tell the responsible gun owners from the rest.  Because a lot of the time the non-responsible ones look just like responsible ones, until they don't. 

Take the fool who dropped his gun in the men's room.  Never happened to him before.  Yet, the accident happened because he did the stupid, negligent thing he always did, and this one time it went wrong.  Up until that point, he was a "responsible gun owner".  Unfortunately, his idiot employer still thinks of him that way, instead of adding new information and re-evaluating his value to the company. 

I do FMEAs - Failure Mode Effects Analysis - for my job.  It is a system whereby you look at how a design or a process can go wrong so you can hopefully correct it before it happens.  You make certain assumptions (the materials are good, etc) and you brainstorm where errors can be introduced.  You then evaluate them based on 3 factors:
You multiply these three numbers for each failure mode and address the highest scores first.  Anything with a severity of 8 or higher, no matter the score, goes right to the top of the list, since it involves hurting people.  In the airline industry, the severity is almost always a 10, because almost any failure can lead to a plane crashing.

It is the same thing with guns.  The problem is, we do not really take guns or gun safety seriously in this country.  If we did, the Big Foot hunters, and all the rest of the responsible-until-they're-not gun owners would not get within shouting distance of guns.

Instead we have this: (warning, rude language)
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2013/11/guns-and-ammo-magazine-firing-shows.html
Pro-gun guy writes an editorial for Guns and Ammo suggesting that maybe a little regulation in the form of 16 hours of quality training is a good idea.  How was that received?  With howls of indignation, promises to cease subscriptions and his ultimate firing.  Yay responsible gun owners.

As I've said before, if these idiots were only shooting themselves, then I would be completely behind their agenda of inadvertently improving the gene pool by subtracting themselves from it.  But that isn't what happens.  More often than not, someone else pays the price for their stupidity.

So, please pardon me if I get a little liberal about who is or is not a responsible gun owner.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 10, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Justified, S5 E6

Louisiana kidnap victim's cousin kicks down door, shoots and kills abductor (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/justice/louisiana-cousin-kills-kidnapper/index.html)

Quote
(CNN) -- A man looking for his abducted cousin kicked in the back door of an abandoned house and shot and killed her kidnapper, authorities in Louisiana said.


A case of non-fail.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 10, 2013, 03:33:55 PM
Meanwhile ....

It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_My_Party_(Lesley_Gore_song))


Shooting leaves 2 dead at house party near Houston (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/10/justice/texas-shooting/index.html)

Quote
(CNN) -- A shooting at a house party near Houston left two people dead and 22 others injured, authorities said early Sunday.


They always look like a good guy ... until ...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 11, 2013, 02:18:19 AM
I'm into guns.  Handguns.  Mostly revolvers.  I go shooting about twice a week and I load my own ammo so that I can afford serious practice.

Part of loading your own ammo requires "clocking" the round, measuring its velocity with an instrument called a chronograph a "crony".

(http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_221769_imageset_01?$main-Large$)

The round is fired over the instrument between the struts.  Of course if you are using the gun sights to aim and you are standing up close to the instrument, you have to remember parallax.  The bullet will hit quite a bit lower than the sights.

One thing I do know is that if you put a .380 acp  round through the face of the crony exiting out the rear, it doesn't work very well.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 11, 2013, 08:12:37 AM
40 armed goobers in Texas wait in restaurant parking lot for 4 women to come out.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/10/2921121/dallas-gun-advocates-protest-restaurant-gun-control-advocates/

Quote
On Saturday, nearly 40 armed men, women, and children waited outside a Dallas, Texas area restaurant to protest a membership meeting for the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun safety advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Look at the photo.  Is that responsible gun ownership?  It looks more to me like a mob. That guy was crazy for not calling the police.

And what the hell is this?
Quote
Other gun advocate groups will hold rallies this upcoming December 14th, the anniversary date of the Sandy Hook shooting.

This looks a lot like they are celebrating a national tragedy.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Anfauglir on November 11, 2013, 08:32:37 AM
Look at the photo.  Is that responsible gun ownership?  It looks more to me like a mob. That guy was crazy for not calling the police.

It's the guy in red that gives me the chills.  If you're sat waiting peacefully for someone to come talk to you, thats NOT the way you do it.

And the argument for not calling 911?  Makes no sense at all.  If all those guys with guns were waiting peacefully with their legally carried firearms to have a civil chat with people they disagreed with, then a few carloads of cops being there would make no difference.  The decision not to call 911 ONLY makes sense if he fully expected the guys with guns to start shooting.

Gunbullies, just like the guy said.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 11, 2013, 01:51:03 PM
Look at the photo.  Is that responsible gun ownership?  It looks more to me like a mob. That guy was crazy for not calling the police.

It's the guy in red that gives me the chills.  If you're sat waiting peacefully for someone to come talk to you, thats NOT the way you do it.

And the argument for not calling 911?  Makes no sense at all.  If all those guys with guns were waiting peacefully with their legally carried firearms to have a civil chat with people they disagreed with, then a few carloads of cops being there would make no difference.  The decision not to call 911 ONLY makes sense if he fully expected the guys with guns to start shooting.

Gunbullies, just like the guy said.

It's not responsible gun ownership. It's also not socially responsible, either. When you have a disagreement with someone the last thing you should do is grab a firearm and display it provocatively. These gunbullies don't want to be rational and discuss their issues; they want to force their viewpoint upon anyone who doesn't agree. Isn't the whole point of possessing firearms for the purpose of personal defense and not intimidating or forcing others into having a different opinion?

What if these women were at abortion clinics and as each of them left they saw a group of men whipping out their erect penises and yelling "come and take it"?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 11, 2013, 02:02:14 PM
It looks more to me like a mob. That guy was crazy for not calling the police.

If people can go out and display their firearms like this in Texas or other places, how in the hell is any person supposed to know when a person carrying a firearm is simply exercising his/her Second Amendment rights versus being a criminal? How is this to be discerned when there is a group of them doing them same?

If this group doesn't like what a few women think about guns and this is their counterpoint, what should you think about this group if you are black? Should they concern you? What if you are Latino? If they go after women to intimidate them, they will go after anybody else. Last time I checked when you pursue and or corner someone, you are guilty of assault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault).[1]


http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/in-an-arlington-strip-mall-a-showdown-between-open-carry-advocates-and-four-moms-in-a-blue-mesa.html/
 1. Wikipedia: At common law, an assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 11, 2013, 02:10:32 PM
It's not responsible gun ownership. It's also not socially responsible, either. When you have a disagreement with someone the last thing you should do is grab a firearm and display it provocatively.

No kidding.  It's a crime called "brandishing a weapon".  In most states you would get a felony and lose your right to own a firearm.  It's also fucking stupid.  If someone displays hostility and draws a weapon  that constitutes an imminent threat to life an limb and most places you are justified in shooting him.  I damn sure would.  I'm not going to wait to find out if he really means it or not.  He can aim and fire in an instant  and I would need two seconds to draw.

I absolutely agree with the suggestion that one should have to undergo significant training before being allowed to own a firearm, especially a handgun.  I also think that one should be required to register every firearm with the state just like a vehicle.  Currently sales between individuals require no background check nor any kind of registration.  This practice is very common.  I bought most of my guns privately.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 11, 2013, 02:32:48 PM
No kidding.  It's a crime called "brandishing a weapon".  In most states you would get a felony and lose your right to own a firearm. 

Apparently not in Texas where brandishing a weapon in public is normal.


It's also fucking stupid.  If someone displays hostility and draws a weapon  that constitutes an imminent threat to life an limb and most places you are justified in shooting him.  I damn sure would.  I'm not going to wait to find out if he really means it or not.  He can aim and fire in an instant  and I would need two seconds to draw.

I'm very surprised that someone didn't call the police on this merry band of thugs, but then again, what could the police do? This type of activity must be normal in Texas. Perhaps upon exiting their cars in the parking lot, Texans just aim and shoot their prey before they haul it into a restaurant and ask the chef to whip up a good meal with it. I mean, if you have a group of 20 people you gotta shoot a lotta critters to feed 'em all.


More sanely, I do wonder what the police would do if they received a phone call stating that in the parking lot were 20 people holding baseball bats in hand and this group appears to be waiting for another group of people to exit the restaurant ....   I wonder ....


I absolutely agree with the suggestion that one should have to undergo significant training before being allowed to own a firearm, especially a handgun.  I also think that one should be required to register every firearm with the state just like a vehicle.  Currently sales between individuals require no background check nor any kind of registration.  This practice is very common.  I bought most of my guns privately.

WHAT?!?!   That is treason!!   It's the right of every red-blooded male (white male, anyway) to buy, trade, shoot, brandish or just make love to a firearm of any kind at any time whatsoever.

We should not treat firearms like cars!  Cars are dangerous weapons and require training, experience, licensure, testing and monitoring. Cars are nothing like firearms. Firearms are constitutionally required of every person to possess!  DAMMIT!

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 11, 2013, 04:40:59 PM
We should not treat firearms like cars!

They will agree with that, but they will say there is no right to drive a car in the constitution. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on November 11, 2013, 06:04:41 PM
40 armed goobers in Texas wait in restaurant parking lot for 4 women to come out.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/10/2921121/dallas-gun-advocates-protest-restaurant-gun-control-advocates/

Quote
On Saturday, nearly 40 armed men, women, and children waited outside a Dallas, Texas area restaurant to protest a membership meeting for the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun safety advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Look at the photo.  Is that responsible gun ownership?  It looks more to me like a mob. That guy was crazy for not calling the police.

And what the hell is this?
Quote
Other gun advocate groups will hold rallies this upcoming December 14th, the anniversary date of the Sandy Hook shooting.

This looks a lot like they are celebrating a national tragedy.
This sums up our gun culture in this country to a "T".
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 11, 2013, 07:03:27 PM
We should not treat firearms like cars!

They will agree with that, but they will say there is no right to drive a car in the constitution.

Let's pass a law that requires a person to surrender his/her drivers license upon exercising his/her Second Amendment rights. That's a good way to recognize that driving is a privilege and that guns are a right.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 12, 2013, 08:13:09 AM
gunfail 43 
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/11/1252676/-I-don-t-know-how-my-friend-got-shot-by-the-gun-I-was-cleaning-while-doing-bong-hits-GunFAIL-XLIII

Quote
Heavy volume this week, as we top 50 listings for the first time in quite a while. But that just gives me a chance to remind you that statistically, I'm capturing only about 20 percent of accidental gun injuries each week, and there's no telling how many accidental discharges or other types of GunFAIL are being missed that don't immediately cause injury. I suspect that the arrival of November—and with it, deer hunting season—is partly responsible for the increase in gun cleaning accidents, of which there were eight admitted instances. Three people were accidentally shot in hunting mishaps, as well. Four, if you count the one who says he and his friends were out hunting for Bigfoot. In Tulsa, Oklahoma. Because of course. A fifth victim shot himself in the face when he took his rifle out while telling hunting stories.
...
(more)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 12, 2013, 08:17:57 AM
interesting photo in the link provided by Chronos, regarding the 40 armed idiots attempting to intimidate 4 women at a restaurant.  It showed two perspectives on the photo - one was from the think progress link I posted.  the other was from straight on.  In the straight on, it shows they were posing for a group photo.  It looks a lot less ominous. 

But the point remains - 40 goobers stalking 4 women and demonstrating with an open show of weapons is a problem.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on November 12, 2013, 08:48:57 AM
this one made news over the pond

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24907851 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24907851)

Teenager blasted in the face with a shot gun whilst standing on a porch apparently looking for help after a car crash. WTF

Sorry if you've posted this before, it appeared on the Beeb today.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on November 12, 2013, 08:57:15 AM
We (in the USA) don't value life much...but we are a Christian nation.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 12, 2013, 12:55:37 PM
WHAT?!?!   That is treason!!   ...

Said in irony, of course, but I've had that charge and worse leveled at me in the gun forums where the word "liberal" carries the same charge as "terrorist".

Even the most modest gun control is considered the thin edge of the wedge.   The govt plans to take our guns away.  They want to disarm the population so that they can round them up in concentration camps and hand them over to the UN.  You scoff eh?   Just wait till you are being led away like helpless sheep while black helicopters circle overhead.  Nobody wanted to believe that Hitler was really going to exterminate the Jews either.

Since the election,  followed by the Newtown shooting and talk of gun control, there has been a massive panic buy.  Ammo has been impossible to find even at inflated prices and gun prices have shot up.   The gun and ammo mfrs are running two or three shifts  and cannot keep up.   Of course, once hoarding starts, everyone is forced into it.  If I find ammo at Walmart,  I will buy four boxes where I would have just bought one.  Obama has been the best thing for the gun industry in a century.  They ought make him an honorary lifetime member of the NRA.

While these guys sit on a caches of freshly bought guns and case upon case of ammo,  they accuse the govt of deliberately inducing the shortage  to,  you guessed it,  disarm the population.  You don't think you did this to yourselves?  Quoting  production and sales numbers given out by the mfrs does no good.  All this information is controlled by the govt and the Liberal Media and anyway, quoting stats is a weasel liberal trick.

If you thought arguing with fundies was absurd, try these guys. It's surreal.  I don't dare mention that I'm an atheist.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 12, 2013, 09:18:31 PM
Obama has been the best thing for the gun industry in a century.

It appears to me that the manufacturers have capitalized on the fear mongering of a black man from Kenya in The White House. Nothing else has been accomplished by Obama to restrict guns.


If you thought arguing with fundies was absurd, try these guys. It's surreal.  I don't dare mention that I'm an atheist.

No, i wouldn't. There is a large crossover of the circles of gun nuts and religious freaks. They share living in a fervor of fear, and they like it that way.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 13, 2013, 07:31:01 PM
^^^They also share the belief that the world is going to end, due to the presence of black and brown people[1], and/or Satan, and they want to be ready. However, the real threats to our existence, like climate change and overpopulation, are assumed to be lies made up by the UN and atheist scientists, spread by the liberal corporate media.

You know, all those underpaid atheist scientists teaching at universities, who secretly control the world in their spare time..... &)
 1. who are either too educated and wealthy or too uneducated and poor, are either making too many babies and swamping the overly generous welfare we have in the US, or having ten abortions between hair and nail appointments
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on November 14, 2013, 12:45:48 AM
Anyone hear about the Idaho gun fail? I heard it on Rachel Maddow tonight. This "Constitutional Republican" just got elected to the State Congress in Idaho. Apparently he was arrested twice for rape (in Florida, I believe), he got off on one but plead guilty to another (assault with the attempt to rape). So, he moves to Idaho falsely registers for a gun (2007/2012) and when people find out he lied about the felony he had the Sheriff takes away his gun but then has to give it back because in Idaho any elected official doesn't have to obey the law when in concern to guns.

So, Idaho has a State Rep. Who is a felon of rape, which he was charged twice for, found guilty of one who because of Idaho's backwater laws gets to own a gun.

And people say Florida sucks. Seems today Idaho sucks. The kicker to that is, they don't seem to care. The future of the Republican party!

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 14, 2013, 09:24:09 AM
So, Idaho has a State Rep. Who is a felon of rape, which he was charged twice for, found pled guilty of one who because of Idaho's backwater laws gets to own a gun.

A small but important correction. The fact that he pled guilty, even if pleading guilty was to get a lesser sentence, means that he acknowledged the crime rather than maintaining that he was never guilty of it but a jury decided differently. While that in and of itself is a minor difference, it just adds more reason for being against his possession of a firearm.

And, yes, I saw this on Maddow last night, as well, and as I was watching it I remembered that Idaho is the state that gives non-residents conceal carry permits after "qualifying" for the permit at an approved site. There was a story in the Baltimore news  about how a Marylander can get a conceal carry permit in Idaho, even though the Marylander has no ties to Idaho at all and may have never visited Idaho, by going to the approved site which is a gun shop in Glen Burnie.

Anyway, I am pretty sure it's Idaho that does this. I don't think it was Utah, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Utah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uCAWUXYKUM#t=94
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on November 14, 2013, 04:31:37 PM
Idaho is the state that gives non-residents conceal carry permits after "qualifying" for the permit at an approved site. There was a story in the Baltimore news  about how a Marylander can get a conceal carry permit in Idaho, even though the Marylander has no ties to Idaho at all and may have never visited Idaho, by going to the approved site which is a gun shop in Glen Burnie.

Anyway, I am pretty sure it's Idaho that does this. I don't think it was Utah, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Utah.

There are quite a few states that issue carry permits to non-residents.  I myself, as a Maryland resident, have had licenses from New Hampshire, Florida, and Virginia.  Idaho and Utah also issue such licenses.  (By the way, Maryland does as well, although since Maryland is a may-issue state, your application will probably be denied whether you're a resident or not.)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 14, 2013, 04:32:31 PM
Remember, the real west was not as wild and crazy as this sh!t. Can you imagine a guy confessing to rape and getting elected to public office and being given a gun in any civilized country ?  :o

Un-frikken-believeable. We are so toast. And we have the nerve to go to other countries and tell people how to live.:P

The sooner the Chinese show up, take over, and start running things, the better. &)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 14, 2013, 08:45:06 PM
There are quite a few states that issue carry permits to non-residents.  I myself, as a Maryland resident, have had licenses from New Hampshire, Florida, and Virginia.  Idaho and Utah also issue such licenses.  (By the way, Maryland does as well, although since Maryland is a may-issue state, your application will probably be denied whether you're a resident or not.)

Yet, you are not legally allowed to possess drivers licenses in more than one state.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: shnozzola on November 14, 2013, 09:36:25 PM
Plastic Guns Made With 3-D Printers Pose New Security Concerns

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/21/article-2328354-19E8EC6D000005DC-480_634x379.jpg)


http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/11/14/245078880/plastic-guns-made-with-3-d-printers-pose-new-security-concerns
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on November 15, 2013, 07:53:40 AM
There are quite a few states that issue carry permits to non-residents.  I myself, as a Maryland resident, have had licenses from New Hampshire, Florida, and Virginia.  Idaho and Utah also issue such licenses.  (By the way, Maryland does as well, although since Maryland is a may-issue state, your application will probably be denied whether you're a resident or not.)

Yet, you are not legally allowed to possess drivers licenses in more than one state.

That's because you don't need more than one driver's license.  Your driver's license is automatically valid in all fifty states.  That's not even remotely true for handgun carry licenses.  If, for example, I wanted to be able to carry in West Virginia, I wouldn't be able to do so with a Maryland license (even if I were able to get one, which I can't, because Maryland turns down almost everyone) and West Virginia doesn't issue licenses to non-residents.  However, if I get a Virginia non-resident license, I can use that to carry in West Virginia.  It's a crazy patchwork quilt that drives gun owners bats.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 15, 2013, 04:10:16 PM
Many states have reciprocity agreements so that in effect a permit issued by one state may license you to carry in several other states.  Here in NM people often get a Utah permit,  yes they issue to non residents,  which  brings a lot of other states with it.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 15, 2013, 05:46:38 PM
There has to be a national database, and there have to be nationwide laws. If someone commits a gun fail that results in serious injury or death, they should never get to carry a gun again. In any state.

Buh-bye Dick Cheney's gun rights. He is the poster boy for privileged drunken gun fail who never served a minute of time in police custody after shooting a 78 year old man in the face, neck and chest with lead shot. Famously, the man who got shot apologized for getting his face in front of Cheney's gun. To date, Cheney has never apologized.  :P >:(
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 15, 2013, 10:39:22 PM
If you buy a new gun or a used gun from out of state,  ownership must be registered and transferred by someone with a Federal Firearms License.  The transfer must be approved by the ATF who will do a background check on the buyer.  A felony,  a record of domestic violence, a firearm violation,  will result in rejection.  It is hard for a criminal to buy a gun this way,  though of course it does happen some.

But in most states there is no control of private sales, unless the gun is being shipped.  I just bought a couple of pistols off my shooting buddy.  Gave him a check, picked up the guns and took them home.  It's easy enough to find classified ads in your state, meet the owner and buy a gun with no official notice.   To compound this,  many gun owners,  preppers etc, are extremely suspicious of any kind of govt involvement and are happy to transfer a firearm without any registration.

The NYTimes did a "sting"  offering guns for sale through classified ads.  A surprising number of felons showed up,  and  most of them admitted to having an arsenal of weapons.

There are similarly strict rules when applying for a Carry Permit  CCW.  In NM as in many states,  there is two days mandatory training and the permit can take 3 months to come through.   But,  that's only needed to carry a concealed weapon in public.  On private property,  in your vehicle or worn openly on your belt no permission is needed from the state.

I know several "law abiding citizens"  who carry concealed without a permit,  figuring,  they are very unlikely to get searched and if they do have to use it,  a weapons violation is small potatoes compared to what's at stake.  A surprising number of women do this.

Even with a permit, one is not allowed to bring a weapon into a post office, a school, a bar and various other federal buildings.   Every permit holder, including instructors for the police force, that I know routinely ignores this.

The permit allows only one concealed weapon,  many carry a backup gun anyway.   The permit forbids carrying a gun in .22lr caliber.  Most of the backup guns are in that caliber.  .22lr is also a favorite with the women.  The guns are small, inexpensive and easy to shoot.

To compound this,  many people carry significant amounts of ammo which I consider absurd.  The rule of thumb for civilian encounters is 3 3 3.   They happen within 3 yards,  last no more than 3 seconds and fire no more than 3 shots  (typically more misses than hits)..

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 16, 2013, 12:36:47 AM
^^^^Thank you for this. You sound like you know your stuff.

My experience around guns included growing up with grandfather's never-fired shotgun by the door. There were also the random crazy ex-military relatives with the handgun hidden somewhere in the house.  :o

As an adult I knew many young urban men with virtually no training, packing illegally for self-defense from crime or gangs. Most of the time the weapons were never fired, and when they were, it was almost always a gun fail, accidental discharge or the wrong person was hit.

When I was a social worker in the crack-ravaged 1980's, bystander shootings of kids were so common. They never made the national news the way random school shootings do today.  :(

In the 90's, shots were fired in my Oakland neighborhood on a regular basis. An architect moved out when a bullet came through a wall and just missed him in his house. A guy was shot in the leg in my front yard, another killed in my back yard and another killed in the building next door. My husband and I ran through gunfire more than once. :o

I have never understood the idea that more guns make a community safer.  :P
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on November 16, 2013, 09:26:31 AM
There are quite a few states that issue carry permits to non-residents.  I myself, as a Maryland resident, have had licenses from New Hampshire, Florida, and Virginia.  Idaho and Utah also issue such licenses.  (By the way, Maryland does as well, although since Maryland is a may-issue state, your application will probably be denied whether you're a resident or not.)

Yet, you are not legally allowed to possess drivers licenses in more than one state.

That's because you don't need more than one driver's license.  Your driver's license is automatically valid in all fifty states.  That's not even remotely true for handgun carry licenses.  If, for example, I wanted to be able to carry in West Virginia, I wouldn't be able to do so with a Maryland license (even if I were able to get one, which I can't, because Maryland turns down almost everyone) and West Virginia doesn't issue licenses to non-residents.  However, if I get a Virginia non-resident license, I can use that to carry in West Virginia.  It's a crazy patchwork quilt that drives gun owners bats.

In fact, expanding on this, if may, I'd like to offer a little thought experiment.

You're planning a cross-country road trip from Baltimore to Los Angeles, and you would like to be able to carry your sidearm with you on this trip.  For planning purposes as far as driving goes, all you need to do is make sure that your Maryland driver's license (which you probably already have anyway) is current.  For carrying your handgun, though…?

Here is a list of the states that you will need to travel thru, in order, according to Google Maps:  Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma[1], Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and finally California.

Now, using the various tools available to you at http://www.handgunlaw.us , please determine which of the various licenses and permits you will need to acquire to carry your handgun for your entire trip.  Be sure to read all of the caveats involved regarding things like whether any particular state will accept a non-resident license from a third state[2].

Once you've determined all of the various permits and licenses you'll need, contact the appropriate licensing agency in each pertinent state to confirm that the information at the HandgunLaw site is accurate, and once you've done that, ask them to send you all the information and forms and everything that you'll need to complete.  Each state's requirements will vary quite a bit, so be sure to examine the documentation thoroughly -- some states will require fingerprints, for example, while others won't, and some will not allow you to apply by mail, in which case you'll have to figure out how to handle that.  Most states will require their applications to be notarized, and there will be various fees and so forth on top of all of this.  Send in all the various forms and everything, then sit back and wait -- getting all of your licenses and permits is probably going to take over three months even if nothing goes wrong.

Now.  Do you still wonder why people want -- indeed, need -- to apply for carry licenses from several different states?  (Don't say "I'll travel without my handgun".  No doubt that's true, but that's not the point of this exercise.)
 1. missing Kansas by only about 1,000 feet, by the way, so be careful not to cross the border unless you're prepared for that as well
 2. Michigan, for example, will accept a Florida license only if you live in Florida.  Fortunately, you're not traveling thru Michigan, so that state need not concern you, but you'll need to check for the same kind of potential problem for the states you are traveling thru
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 16, 2013, 11:27:37 PM
How about a basic national gun permit law? There is already the 2nd amendment, which is national. You could have some "basic" national firearms-- say three types of handguns and five types of hunting rifles or shotguns, that would be allowed in every state with the national permit. Then individual states, counties, cities could allow or ban whatever falls outside of the basics.

If Texas and Florida decide that anyone over the age of 10 should be able to carry a bazooka into a bar and a rocket launcher into a preschool, more power to them. And good luck getting any wealthy tourists or sane people to come there. (And make sure people who want out get to leave those crazy-a$$ states!)

I suppose that would entail a knock down drag out media battle with stupidity ruling the day, like with national health care, national education standards, national environmental policy and just about everything else that might make some sense.

I realize the benefits of a federal system of government, but there are times when I wish we had fewer states, like Canada's provinces. Maybe there could be ten regions and we could at least have only ten battles for rational gun permits, education standards, health care, gay rights and other laws instead of having to make sense of fifty different sets of laws that change every 2-4 years....
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on November 18, 2013, 12:31:10 PM
How about a basic national gun permit law? There is already the 2nd amendment, which is national. You could have some "basic" national firearms-- say three types of handguns and five types of hunting rifles or shotguns, that would be allowed in every state with the national permit. Then individual states, counties, cities could allow or ban whatever falls outside of the basics.

I like this.  Ok let me put in my vote for the choice of weapons.  Anything less powerful than or equal to Semi auto handgun with 17 round magazine, any shoulder fired semi auto rifle with a 30 round magazine or less powerful, any 10 gauge or less shotgun with a magazine capacity of 10 or less.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 18, 2013, 04:40:30 PM
Now.  Do you still wonder why people want -- indeed, need -- to apply for carry licenses from several different states?  (Don't say "I'll travel without my handgun".  No doubt that's true, but that's not the point of this exercise.)

But that sort of is the point.  What kind of insecure sociopath cannot take a drive without his gun within convenient reach?  What terrors does he imagine await him out on the freeways of the nation?  Millions of people drive every single day without the aid of additional weaponry, and against all odds, virtually none of them need a weapon to do it.  Just leave the guns at home, fer chrissakes.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 18, 2013, 05:15:43 PM
Now.  Do you still wonder why people want -- indeed, need -- to apply for carry licenses from several different states?  (Don't say "I'll travel without my handgun".  No doubt that's true, but that's not the point of this exercise.)

But that sort of is the point.  What kind of insecure sociopath cannot take a drive without his gun within convenient reach?  What terrors does he imagine await him out on the freeways of the nation?  Millions of people drive every single day without the aid of additional weaponry, and against all odds, virtually none of them need a weapon to do it.  Just leave the guns at home, fer chrissakes.

That is a hopeless position, although I agree with it. Most of the billions of people on the planet survive quite well without packing firearms with them to the store and to work. Having a gun does not make people safer in most modern industrial urban environments. Home invasions, workplace shootings and personal crime by strangers are statistically very rare in the US, and even more rare in Europe and Japan. [1]

But risk assessment is one of things that human beings are really lousy at. Fact is, there are millions of Americans who think they need guns, and want to own them. The present laws are a patchwork of illogical nonsense that encourage people to disregard them. I would rather have some rational gun laws that make sense than try to argue American out of their guns. And I would rather people who own guns know how to use them properly to reduce the gun fails. In that sense, I think we should treat guns the way we should treat alcohol, drugs and prostitution-- assume some people will indulge no matter what, and figure out how to reduce the harm.
 1. However, if I lived in Sao Paulo, Manila,  Johannesburg or Mexico City where stranger crime, kidnappings and gangland mayhem are rampant, I might be more inclined to own a firearm and to know how to use it properly.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on November 18, 2013, 05:51:10 PM
Now.  Do you still wonder why people want -- indeed, need -- to apply for carry licenses from several different states?  (Don't say "I'll travel without my handgun".  No doubt that's true, but that's not the point of this exercise.)

But that sort of is the point.

No, it is not the point.  Go thru the exercise as indicated, then ask yourself how you would feel if you had to deal with the same thing with regard to your driver's license.  You'd be outraged.

Quote
Just leave the guns at home, fer chrissakes.

And if the situation were the same with driver's licenses, and someone told you to "just don't drive a car, fer chrissakes", how would you react?  (Please be honest, and please don't dodge the question.)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 18, 2013, 05:57:58 PM
And if the situation were the same with driver's licenses, and someone told you to "just don't drive a car, fer chrissakes", how would you react?  (Please be honest, and please don't dodge the question.)

Or just stay put in your own state...unless you have "official" business.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on November 18, 2013, 06:55:59 PM
And if the situation were the same with driver's licenses, and someone told you to "just don't drive a car, fer chrissakes", how would you react?  (Please be honest, and please don't dodge the question.)

You can drive on a cross-country trip without a gun.  You cannot drive on a cross-country trip without a car.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on November 18, 2013, 07:05:25 PM
And if the situation were the same with driver's licenses, and someone told you to "just don't drive a car, fer chrissakes", how would you react?  (Please be honest, and please don't dodge the question.)

You can drive on a cross-country trip without a gun.  You cannot drive on a cross-country trip without a car.

Still not the point, sparky.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: DVZ3 on November 18, 2013, 07:05:38 PM
I apologize if this was already covered but... 3D plastic guns are now old school printing technology.

Welcome to the first 3D printed metal gun that was capable of firing 50 rounds designed and manufactured (printed) by Solid Concepts located in........Texas.

http://mashable.com/2013/11/11/3d-printed-metal-gun/
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on November 18, 2013, 07:12:04 PM
I apologize if this was already covered but... 3D plastic guns are now old school printing technology.

Welcome to the first 3D printed metal gun that was capable of firing 50 rounds designed and manufactured (printed) by Solid Concepts located in........Texas.

http://mashable.com/2013/11/11/3d-printed-metal-gun/

Right, I was reading about that the other day.  It's going to be a while before this has any kind of a practical impact on the gun control issue because the printer involved in creating that gun (the metal one, not the plastic one) is currently far too expensive to pose any kind of a problem.  The day will likely come, however, and when it does, it's probably going to be a mess.  In contemporary times, the law always lags far behind technology.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 18, 2013, 07:18:02 PM
And if the situation were the same with driver's licenses, and someone told you to "just don't drive a car, fer chrissakes", how would you react?  (Please be honest, and please don't dodge the question.)

You can drive on a cross-country trip without a gun.  You cannot drive on a cross-country trip without a car.

Greyhound
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on November 18, 2013, 08:37:14 PM
Greyhound

Last I checked, Greyhound doesn't let you drive the bus.  Or was this not meant to actually address what I said in my post?

Pianodwarf, why did you +1 such a stupid post?

EDIT:  Also, taking the bus would increase the cost of the trip, and restrict the times and locations one could go to.  This is not true of leaving the gun at home.  The whole analogy is retarded.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 18, 2013, 10:20:52 PM
Owning and driving your own vehicle across state lines is not a protected right under the constitution. It is a privilege granted so long as you follow the rules of the road and the rules for owning and operating a vehicle.

Owning and using your own gun IS a protected right under the constitution. There are certain rules and regulations which go along with responsible gun ownership.

The rules for owning and operating a car are far less prohibitive and complicated than owning a gun.

The standard for using your privilege to drive cross country does not involve getting permission or paying extra fees to the individual states across which you may travel.

However, you do not have the same universal RIGHT to have a gun in different locations across the very same land if you are just passing through.

Greyhound

Last I checked, Greyhound doesn't let you drive the bus.  Or was this not meant to actually address what I said in my post?

Pianodwarf, why did you +1 such a stupid post?

EDIT:  Also, taking the bus would increase the cost of the trip, and restrict the times and locations one could go to.  This is not true of leaving the gun at home.  The whole analogy is retarded.

Driving a car is not a protected right...yet it is easier to do that in all 48 contiguous states than it is to exercise your rights in all the states.

What difference does it make if taking the Greyhound is more expensive or restricts your convenience? We don't have the right to drive our cars whenever and wherever we please. If we need to get somewhere we can rely on public transportation or commercial transportation.

The analogy doesn't fail. Just your willingness to accept it. 

You don't need a car to travel cross country. Most people don't need a car period. And young people are starting to realize this fact.

Your "Edit" highlights the argument that taking a Greyhound complicates things and makes it more expensive for people. All the different state laws concerning guns complicate things and make it more expensive for responsible gun owners.


If I wanted to give my brother a shotgun for Christmas but he live two states away from me, what is the easiest and least expensive way to get it to him legally?


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 18, 2013, 10:28:13 PM
Now.  Do you still wonder why people want -- indeed, need -- to apply for carry licenses from several different states?  (Don't say "I'll travel without my handgun".  No doubt that's true, but that's not the point of this exercise.)

But that sort of is the point.  What kind of insecure sociopath cannot take a drive without his gun within convenient reach?  What terrors does he imagine await him out on the freeways of the nation? 

I do agree that I don't understand the necessity of carrying a gun while driving across the United States. When I was a kid, my family drove across the United States, from Washington DC to Los Angeles CA and there were no guns involved. We didn't feel threatened at all. This was during the oil crisis and we had our gas tank siphoned by thieves in Little Rock AR while we were asleep in our hotel (at least the thieves left us enough gas to get to a gas station).

The idea of carrying a gun with you on a drive across the United States caters to innate fears of ... ? ... things seen in movies?


No, it is not the point.  Go thru the exercise as indicated, then ask yourself how you would feel if you had to deal with the same thing with regard to your driver's license.  You'd be outraged.

Quote
Just leave the guns at home, fer chrissakes.

And if the situation were the same with driver's licenses, and someone told you to "just don't drive a car, fer chrissakes", how would you react?  (Please be honest, and please don't dodge the question.)

First, a drivers license is given to you for passing certain exams and it is maintained by monitoring of activity by police for moving violations or accidents, and it is kept by maintaining a good driving record. Depending on my age or medical conditions (for which significant medical conditions must be reported to the state administration for drivers), I may be required to pass additional exams, and I may be restricted in my use of a drivers license or I may have it revoked. As I have stated before, the qualifications for obtaining and maintaining a drivers license are far more strict than firearms.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-OFO6E_OORbw/UorQKLnivLI/AAAAAAAAAgY/vF3pWc5FJQ8/w432-h189-no/rate-of-death.png) (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm)

According to the information at the CDC, the rate of deaths from cars versus firearms is relatively the same, but certainly the qualifications to obtain firearms are not, and the qualifications for a carry permit are less, as well (at least in most states). This doesn't even compare the requirements for qualifying the cars that are driven (safety inspection, emissions inspection, registration), as well.

Second, I am well aware of varying levels of restrictions on activities that one can or cannot do in another state. I hold various insurance licenses and securities licenses. I cannot conduct business in another state even though I am licensed in my home state. In certain circumstances, I can obtain licenses in other states (and I have), but I must follow all the requirements for obtaining those licenses (sometimes testing, mostly paperwork and definitely fees), and I must follow the requirements for renewing those licenses (continuing education, appointments from sponsoring insurance companies, etc.). I must sign forms attesting that I have not been charged (much less convicted) of a felony, and that I have no pending warrants, sanctions, levies, judgments, penalties, etc.

The laws and regulations of the insurance business are governed by each individual state, as well as coverages, requirements, notifications to customers, etc. Why do I have to obtain licenses for each state? Why not have a federal insurance license so that I can operate in every state, automatically? Yet, this is exactly how the business works. I do this for a living -- to put food on my table. I don't know of many people using guns to put food on the table (2013 compared to 1880, there are relatively few, out there, somewhere). If my client moves to California, Wisconsin or Texas, for example, I can't remain their agent, but if I wanted to remain as their agent I would have to jump through a number of hoops (and pay a number of fees periodically).

Furthermore, to obtain certain insurance licenses and all securities licenses, one has to go through fingerprinting and an FBI background check. I am subject to a new FBI background check at any time. I go through all of this to earn a living. I don't have to travel outside of my county and I go through this.

How many gun owners have their fingerprints on file with the FBI? How many gun owners have gone through an FBI background check? How many firearms sales are monitored by the state or federal government? How may firearms can be traced to a particular owner compared to vehicles?

While I can understand the requirements you endure for wanting to carry a firearm across the United States, I cannot sympathize with you. If I have to do more to justify my ability to continue in my career than the average gun owner to buy or possess a firearm, I cannot sympathize with the complaints.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 18, 2013, 10:59:57 PM
Owning and driving your own vehicle across state lines is not a protected right under the constitution. It is a privilege granted so long as you follow the rules of the road and the rules for owning and operating a vehicle.

And that is reasonable.


Owning and using your own gun IS a protected right under the constitution. There are certain rules and regulations which go along with responsible gun ownership.

Being a convicted felon or a person judged by a court as psychologically incapable, yes. That's about it as far as I can tell.

Do you have poor vision, poor motor skills, experience seizures or memory loss? A letter from your physician to the local state agency can cause your drivers license to be suspended or revoked. Does the physician do the same for a firearm? Is the physician required to?  Nope.  A person with poor vision, poor motor skills, seizures or memory loss should also be restricted in the use of firearms -- but they aren't.


The rules for owning and operating a car are far less prohibitive and complicated than owning a gun.

That is demonstrably untrue, starting with my immediately reply above. The regulations for the design, manufacture and maintenance of vehicles are extensive, and the government can require recalls of defective vehicles and drivers. In fact, because vehicles are registered with the state, each manufacturer knows who owns each car and the recall notice can be sent directly to you, the owner, to act upon the notice as a responsible vehicle owner.

You can buy a gun without the government approving the purchase, much less being aware. Try to buy a car and operate it without the government being aware -- you won't be flying under the radar for very long.


The standard for using your privilege to drive cross country does not involve getting permission or paying extra fees to the individual states across which you may travel.

Duplicating effort in governing the use of vehicles is pointless. That's because the government has already monitored the manufacture, sale/purchase, inspection/maintenance and operation of vehicles, as well as the people who operate them. There is a national database of VINs to track where particular cars are registered and who owns them. You can trace a list of previous drivers licenses. In fact, there is a national driver database accessed by all states that can allow one state to notify all other states that this one state thinks you shouldn't be able to driver any longer, and let me tell you something solid -- your state will take notice of an entry in the national driver database and restrict or revoke your drivers license. The same cannot be said for the purchase, maintenance or operation of firearms. You can trace a list of all owners for a particular vehicle but you cannot trace all owners of a firearm.

Please explain to me the context of your assertion that vehicle ownership and operation is less prohibitive than the ownership and operation of firearms.


However, you do not have the same universal RIGHT to have a gun in different locations across the very same land if you are just passing through.

Perhaps because the laws and regulations for the purchase, possession and operation of firearms are inconsistent if not at times absent.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 19, 2013, 12:43:36 AM
Owning and using your own gun IS a protected right under the constitution. There are certain rules and regulations which go along with responsible gun ownership.

Being a convicted felon or a person judged by a court as psychologically incapable, yes. That's about it as far as I can tell.

Most cities do not allow the discharge of a weapon within their limits. I have seen people get arrested for "negligent" discharge. You can't carry your gun with you into federal buildings. You can't carry your gun with you into a bar. You can't just up and drive cross country with a gun in your car...etc. etc. etc. There are certain rules and regulations which go along with RESPONSIBLE  gun ownership.

There are plenty of people who operate vehicles which are not registered, tags expired, no insurance, bad emission control standards, faulty equipment...etc. etc. etc. 

Do you have poor vision, poor motor skills, experience seizures or memory loss?

Driving is a privilege. Not a right.

Quote
A letter from your physician to the local state agency can cause your drivers license to be suspended or revoked. Does the physician do the same for a firearm? Is the physician required to?  Nope.  A person with poor vision, poor motor skills, seizures or memory loss should also be restricted in the use of firearms -- but they aren't.

Driving is a privilege. Not a right. Should someone with poor vision, poor motor skills, experience seizures or memory loss be restricted from voting? Should their right to privacy be revoked as well? Should someone who experiences seizures not be allowed to have an abortion?

The difference being Rights vs. Privileges. Rights should be treated equally across the land. If you are eligible to exercise your rights in Tennessee you should be able to exercise those same rights in California and everywhere in between. 

The rules for owning and operating a car are far less prohibitive and complicated than owning a gun.

That is demonstrably untrue, starting with my immediately reply above. The regulations for the design, manufacture and maintenance of vehicles are extensive, and the government can require recalls of defective vehicles and drivers. In fact, because vehicles are registered with the state, each manufacturer knows who owns each car and the recall notice can be sent directly to you, the owner, to act upon the notice as a responsible vehicle owner.

You can buy a gun without the government approving the purchase, much less being aware. Try to buy a car and operate it without the government being aware -- you won't be flying under the radar for very long.

Responsible car owners and responsible gun owners are on the same par. It is 100% possible to purchase a vehicle without notifying the government of anything. Just like it is 100% possible to purchase a gun without notifying the government of anything. Where you take your chances is in how and where you choose to use the items you have purchased.


The standard for using your privilege to drive cross country does not involve getting permission or paying extra fees to the individual states across which you may travel.

Duplicating effort in governing the use of vehicles is pointless. That's because the government has already monitored the manufacture, sale/purchase, inspection/maintenance and operation of vehicles, as well as the people who operate them. There is a national database of VINs to track where particular cars are registered and who owns them. You can trace a list of previous drivers licenses. In fact, there is a national driver database accessed by all states that can allow one state to notify all other states that this one state thinks you shouldn't be able to driver any longer, and let me tell you something solid -- your state will take notice of an entry in the national driver database and restrict or revoke your drivers license. The same cannot be said for the purchase, maintenance or operation of firearms. You can trace a list of all owners for a particular vehicle but you cannot trace all owners of a firearm.

I got nothing.

Please explain to me the context of your assertion that vehicle ownership and operation is less prohibitive than the ownership and operation of firearms.

On a federal level....drivers licenses are issued by the state in which you live in. Yet, They are accepted in all states as long as your licence is current and valid.

Guns. Not so much. Gotta get special permission to carry them through certain states, even when you are just driving through.


However, you do not have the same universal RIGHT to have a gun in different locations across the very same land if you are just passing through.

Perhaps because the laws and regulations for the purchase, possession and operation of firearms are inconsistent if not at times absent.

There are definitely laws concerning the use of firearms in every single state of the union. There may not be enough laws (in your opinion) about owning them but you cannot legally carry one or fire one anytime or anywhere you please. You can't just use them however you see fit.  Owning and using are two different things. Owning and driving are two different things. I can own one clump of metal which requires a license to operate and as long as I have the license and insurance and registration, I can use that clump of metal in all the states without getting extra special permission. However, if I just keep it in my garage and never drive it, I need no license or registration if I never use it.

The other clump of metal, I do not have to have a license but if I happen to have it on my possession in the wrong place without proper authority, I become a convicted felon...whether I have used it or not.

One is a protected right guaranteed by my constitution...the other isn't. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on November 19, 2013, 01:02:54 AM
Driving a car is not a protected right...yet it is easier to do that in all 48 contiguous states than it is to exercise your rights in all the states.

Organizing a street-blocking protest is also a protected right, and it takes more legal hassle than buying a car, too.  There are good reasons for that.

Have you wondered why you consider the right to hold a gun to be more important than the privilege of owning[1] a vehicle?

What difference does it make if taking the Greyhound is more expensive or restricts your convenience? We don't have the right to drive our cars whenever and wherever we please. If we need to get somewhere we can rely on public transportation or commercial transportation.

The analogy was based on personal reactions, not on rights vs privileges.  Quoted from Pianodwarf:
Quote
And if the situation were the same with driver's licenses, and someone told you to "just don't drive a car, fer chrissakes", how would you react?  (Please be honest, and please don't dodge the question.)

Read the post for context.

The analogy doesn't fail. Just your willingness to accept it.


Any religious nutjob can claim that about any analogy they use.  You saying it here is no different.  "You're just being closed-minded!  Open your heart!"

You don't need a car to travel cross country. Most people don't need a car period. And young people are starting to realize this fact.

You do need some sort of vehicle to travel cross-country.  I suppose to keep it analogous, one could always hire an assassin or armed bodyguard in a new state instead of carrying one's own firearms, too.  A matter of convenience.

Your "Edit" highlights the argument that taking a Greyhound complicates things and makes it more expensive for people. All the different state laws concerning guns complicate things and make it more expensive for responsible gun owners.

You've...never actually done both a bus-based road trip and a car-based road trip, in real life, have you?

If I wanted to give my brother a shotgun for Christmas but he live two states away from me, what is the easiest and least expensive way to get it to him legally?

Assuming he's legally capable of acquiring such firearms, semd him a gift certificate to GunMart or whatever store carries it.  That way he can purchase it himself and you've avoided an unnecessary transfer of dangerous materials across states.
 1. You said "driving" a vehicle - which would not be analogous to owning a gun, but to shooting a gun.  Owning vs owning, using vs using.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 19, 2013, 01:11:52 AM
I take a weapon with me when I drive  and when I go hiking in the woods.

An important factor in discussing guns in civilian society is that it depends a great deal on local culture and the US is very heterogeneous.  What applies in NYC may not be relevant to the back woods of northern New Mexico where I live.  What works for Switzerland might not work in Somalia.

Just because you don't encounter violence in your area, doesn't mean that everybody else is equally secure.  There are about 10,000 homicides every year in the US (mostly committed with handguns).  This means that if you live in an area where the level of violence is below average, there are other regions where it is very high.  Compare NYC with Louisiana

Three people that I knew personally have been murdered here.  One was deliberately run down on the highway. Another was shot in the leg by an unseen shooter with a high power rifle.  He survived with a permanent limp but the passenger in his vehicle  was also shot and killed.    If you are a woman traveling alone and  break down on the highway at night or on a back road, you are in a very dangerous situation.

If you are hiking in the woods and you run across poachers you may be in serious trouble.   Then too, we have bear, cat and coyote here and if there has been a long drought, they get hungry and aggressive.   Not long ago a mountain came into my garage and took my cat.

I have no objection to limiting the capacity of magazines but it's a waste of political capital.  With just a little practice a semi automatic weapon can be reloaded in under two seconds,  about the length of time you might pause between shots to acquire a new target.  It's not worth fighting over.

Revolvers are lower capacity and slower to reload buuuut  here is Jerry Miculek firing 12 shots in 3 seconds out of a six shooter!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw)

An anti gun fail :)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 19, 2013, 01:12:10 AM
If I wanted to give my brother a shotgun for Christmas but he live two states away from me, what is the easiest and least expensive way to get it to him legally?

Assuming he's legally capable of acquiring such firearms, semd him a gift certificate to GunMart or whatever store carries it.  That way he can purchase it himself and you've avoided an unnecessary transfer of dangerous materials across states.

So...when you want to give a personal gift to someone you love...you send them a gift card to some generic store?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 19, 2013, 01:25:51 AM
If I wanted to give my brother a shotgun for Christmas but he live two states away from me, what is the easiest and least expensive way to get it to him legally?
[/quote]

The easiest and cheapest way is to purchase the gun online, e.g.  GunsAmerica.com or Buds Gun Shop, and have them ship it directly to a dealer with a Federal Firearms License near him.  He will have to pass an ATF background check which will take the dealer about 5 mins if there are no "issues".  And yeah,  send him a gift card to cover the $25  transfer  fee that the FFL dealer will collect.

If you already have possession of the gun,  you can ship it UPS or FedEx  (NOT USPS!)  to his FFL or take it to a local FFL and have him ship it.  An FFL is allowed to send guns through USPS.

Shipping and transfer fees will add $40 - $70 to the cost of the gun, which is why most prefer to buy privately without shipping or registration.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 19, 2013, 01:31:13 AM
If you already have possession of the gun,  you can ship it UPS or FedEx  (NOT USPS!)  to his FFL or take it to a local FFL and have him ship it.  An FFL is allowed to send guns through USPS.

That is very interesting and helpful...thank you.

I guess carrying the present with me as I drive is out of the question.

Shame that.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 19, 2013, 01:37:47 AM
I live in Montana. In my 25 years in this area, I remember two non-domestic murders. (Statewide, we have many more. But not many around here.) Granted, one included four deaths. It was drug related. They caught the guy eventually..  So, two incidents, five murders. Not bad for a quarter of a century. We have a few domestic murders now and then, but I ain't domestic, so I'm safe.

I don't know where the key to my cottage is. It is never locked. In a previous house I rented, I didn't have a key either. I left for three weeks to do some work our of state, and ended up being gone for seven months, because I got lots more work. My house was not locked at all during that period. Nothing was missing when I got home.

I go hiking without a gun. The likelyhood of being attacked by a wild animal big enough to hurt me (and there are several) is minimal. Certainly not enough to warrant spending money on something I don't want.

But I've lived in Boston without owning a gun too. I've lived in Portland, OR without owning a gun. I did volunteer work in a poor neighborhood of a mid-sized Indiana city without owning a gun.Even though, as a white guy, I was in the minority.

So each situation is different, I suppose. And fear levels differ from person to person. All I know is that I would rather not contribute to the profits of the firearms industry or add numbers onto accidental shooting statistical charts, and I sure as hell don't want to kill anyone. So I go gunless.

Basically, I refuse to go through life being frightened. As a large enough white guy, I can get away with it. Or at least I have so far. Were I short or female or a short female weighing half what I do now, I might have a different attitude. But that too what partially depend on where I lived and how dangerous I felt my environment was. If I were living where I do now, I wouldn't bother. I know lots of single women living alone near me who don't have a gun. And they're doing fine too.

I would prefer a world without guns. Not because I want to deprive people who enjoy guns of pleasure. But because I would like to see the number of meaningless, gun-related deaths drop to zero. But since I'm not the boss, it ain't gonna happen.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: magicmiles on November 19, 2013, 01:56:40 AM

I don't know where the key to my cottage is.

Jetson lifted it, the sneaky Texan bastard.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on November 19, 2013, 02:37:16 AM

I don't know where the key to my cottage is.

Jetson lifted it, the sneaky Texan bastard.

I hadn't thought of that. Now that I think about it…  :(



Nah, I lost the key while I was building the place, about three days after installing the new door. But even if I had the key I wouldn't lock it.

I do appreciate that I live in a safe area. I know not everyone does.

Also, it helps that we don't have spiders the size of space shuttles and snakes longer than a football field. If I lived in Australia, I'd be dead by now. Because that's all a person can do in that country. Die of something.

You must live somewhere else, magic. The actual population of Australia is zero. It has to be. The place is too dangerous.

I have yet to figure out why kangaroos don't have fangs. Poison fangs. Where were they when the badass was being handed out?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: magicmiles on November 19, 2013, 02:44:56 AM

I have yet to figure out why kangaroos don't have fangs. Poison fangs. Where were they when the badass was being handed out?

They may not have fangs but they can be bloody aggressive. Not this one though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P1vf_7DoLA

Better than shooting it...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 19, 2013, 10:49:00 AM
I guess carrying the present with me as I drive is out of the question.
Shame that.

It really depends on the states you are driving through.  In many states, perhaps the majority, you are ok if the firearm is locked in the trunk of the vehicle.  Usually  a vehicle is considered private property like your house and if the state allows you to keep a shotgun in your house, then you can do so in your vehicle. 

You would have to do some research and then decide whether you trusted your understanding of the laws.   Were it me, I'd just lock it in the trunk and not worry.  As a middle class white guy, the chance of my vehicle being searched is miniscule,  but then, I'm a risk taker.

If you take it to an FFL or ship it yourself  (be sure to tell them it's a firearm so that you can do it right) then you know you are righteous legally but it costs money and time.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 19, 2013, 01:33:39 PM
No, it is not the point.  Go thru the exercise as indicated, then ask yourself how you would feel if you had to deal with the same thing with regard to your driver's license.  You'd be outraged.

Are you saying you are outraged every state does not have the same gun laws as yours?  If so, I'm with you.  I find states will laws unlike mine to be outrageous.  If every state would adopt NJ gun laws, then we could put this whole thing to bed.

Also, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.  Yes, gun laws are different in different states.  Yes, it can be frustrating if you want to keep Gladys within your reach at all times.  But I still have a hard time accepting that premise - traveling with your gun.  Who are you, Paladin?[1]   

Sorry, I have no sympathy for your pain here, pd. 




Owning and driving your own vehicle across state lines is not a protected right under the constitution.

Technically, neither is owning a gun.  For one, it does not specifically mention guns, but the far more ambiguous "arms".  I know, I know, the SCOTUS ruled that it meant handguns, but the point stands.  It is not spelled out in the constitution, activist right-wing judges not withstanding.[2] 

Secondly, it does not say you have the right to take them wherever, whenever. 

Much of what you said in that post made sense, and I agree with.  Just sayin'.

 

You can't carry your gun with you into a bar.

actually, in NC you can.  links found elsewhere in this thread.

Driving is a privilege. Not a right.

How do we know?  Because Jefferson did not encode "driving a car" in the BoR?  If so, then that is madness.  We are relying on a 240 year old document written by men long dead to tell us the limits of what our fellow citizens can do to us.

Similarly, how do we know there is a right to own guns?  That's not solipsism, though I understand it is scary.

Here is the problem I have with rights: they are an extension of morals.  And as such, they are subjective.  They are rooted in the culture from whence they came.  They only exist because we say they exist.[3]  I think today in the US, driving kind of is a right, mainly because it is a necessity in most places.  The problem is, we do not have an effective mechanism to adjust what our culture sees as rights.  So, while driving probably ought to be a right, and it is pretty much viewed as a right by most people, it has not been codified as a right. 

 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Gun_%E2%80%93_Will_Travel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Gun_%E2%80%93_Will_Travel)
 2. that's kind of sarcasm. the activist part.
 3. conservatives are completely wrong when they say morals do not come from governement.  When the government is of/by/for the people, they absolutely do
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 19, 2013, 01:34:36 PM
miles,  please keep it on topic. 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: magicmiles on November 19, 2013, 05:05:08 PM
Acknowledged.
Title: Negligent Discharge.
Post by: zvuv on November 19, 2013, 06:47:55 PM
There are a lot of idiots, drunks and mentally unstable people out there who shouldn't have guns but do.

However responsible gun owners follow the 4 Safety rules.

Always treat the gun as loaded unless you have just inspected it yourself.
Never point the muzzle at anything you care about.  Not even if you've just checked it.  Never ever.
Keep your trigger finger off the trigger at all times until you are ready to fire.
Be aware of your backstop, if you miss the target or penetrate it, where will the bullet land.

If you practice these religiously, to the point where you are uncomfortable pointing a water pistol at someone,  you are very unlikely to have a negligent discharge.  Your habits will protect you.

However, if you are around guns a lot,  you will almost certainly have one or two during your lifetime.  Even  experts,  law enforcement instructors,  almost everyone.  If you've followed the rule of keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction,  well you still  feel like shit, but there are no serious consequences.

There is some consolation in the fact that a large fraction of negligent discharges occur when the gun is being drawn or holstered  (trigger finger) and the owner rips himself a new asshole (muzzle).

Another  common accident, among people who are trying to be responsible, is handling a semi auto without a magazine and forgetting that there is a round in the chamber.  (treat as loaded)  Again, if the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction there will be no serious consequences.

The most serious, and tragic is when kids get a hold of a gun they find in the house. I found this article chilling:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 19, 2013, 08:08:32 PM
Most cities do not allow the discharge of a weapon within their limits. I have seen people get arrested for "negligent" discharge.

My city doesn't allow discharge of firearms, either, which seems reasonable to me. A person firing a gun in self-defense of their person in their own home is not prohibited. Since the primary purpose of firearms, traditionally, and repeatedly told to us by the NRA, is for hunting. I don't think most citizens of most cities care to have people discharging firearms in crowded areas where more likely one will find humans rather than deer. Most citizens do not want firing ranges within their city boundaries, either, at least outdoor firing ranges -- all kinds of things can go wrong.

Of course, if you think the primary purpose of owning firearms is not for hunting animals to eat, then for what reason would you like to discharge your firearm within the city limits?


You can't carry your gun with you into federal buildings.

And neither can you carry knives, pepper spray or other personal defense/offense items like billy clubs or baseball bats, nor can you bring in your pets unless they are service animals trained to provide you assistance due to some disability. I think that means that the people who run the federal government want decorum and not chaos. Maybe they don't want accidents like bullets flying through the air or piles of feces on the floor.


You can't carry your gun with you into a bar.

Nor can you carry your open containers of legal beverages with you while you drive your car. I think the two equate to general safety for all concerned rather than being an affront to your desire to protect yourself in a bar from other patrons who may be armed drunks with two left hands and personal vendettas.

You can't just up and drive cross country with a gun in your car...etc. etc. etc. There are certain rules and regulations which go along with RESPONSIBLE  gun ownership.

There are plenty of people who operate vehicles which are not registered, tags expired, no insurance, bad emission control standards, faulty equipment...etc. etc. etc. 

And, as you point out, there are various rules and regulations regarding the responsible ownership and operation of a motor vehicle. I am unaware of massive numbers of people driving unregistered cars with no insurance. Certainly, some exist, but at least where I live the state puts a lot of teeth into the enforcement of the rules and regulations for vehicle ownership and operation. For example, the fines for a tagged vehicle that doesn't have insurance for a 30-day period are:

Maryland $150 (http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Vehicle-Services/INSURANCE/uninsured.htm), Virginia $500 (http://www.dmv.state.va.us/vehicles/#insurance.asp), New York ($240) (http://www.dmv.ny.gov/insurance.htm#cp), Texas ($350) (can't provide link because of assholishness of forum software), etc.

Don't want to pay the fine? That's okay. If you try to renew your registration/tags or your driver's license, you won't be able to. In fact, if you got pissed off with New York, didn't pay the $240 fine and fled to Alaska where True Liberties on The American FrontierTM exist, Alaska will refuse your attempt to get a driver's license (or renew an existing Alaska license that they gave you previously without knowing the skinny) when they look into the national driver database and see that New York has put the squeeze on your identity. Even 5 years later, you will likely have to trek back from Alaska to New York to settle up in motor court not only the fine that you failed to pay, but the fine for failing to pay the fine.

Do you see a lot of people driving cars without license plates? That's illegal and can result in a fine, suspension of privileges or confiscation of the motor vehicle. Don't like how your state is not enforcing it? That's a different matter entirely. Where I live, you won't get far down the road without a license plate on your car, and if you fail to meet the qualifications for renewal of your license plates the state police will be on the lookout for your vehicle and they will personally unscrew the plates to your car and take them back to headquarters.

Oh, did you go to college at Penn State and get caught by the police with an open container of legal beverage on the street once? Twice? Or did the police catch you at 19 drinking legal beverages at a party in an apartment because the noise got too loud and they came to calm down the party? Tsk, tsk. For up to 4 years You've Got a Friend in PennsylvaniaTM. Her name is Helen and she holds her finger on the computer button that marked you as ineligible for a driver's license -- even if you are not a Pennsylvania resident. You will be trying to schmooze Helen to get her to take that mark off your record, but trust me, Helen is a tough ole bird who disses you as being an irresponsible teenager, even when you are now 22!


Where are the fines for failure to register a firearm?
Where are the fines for failure to maintain the firearm?
Where are the fines for failure to restrict access to firearms to people without the license to use them?
Where are the fines for failure to periodically demonstrate competent use?
Where are the fines for failure to inform the state of medical incompetency?

Oh, yeah, that's right. I forgot! There are no requirements for any of the above.

Do you have poor vision, poor motor skills, experience seizures or memory loss?

Driving is a privilege. Not a right.

Ask the local judge who just sentenced you for a felony if he thinks your ownership or use of a gun is a right or a privilege.

If the ownership and use of a gun is a personal right that shall not be infringed, then we should allow any inmate in a prison to have a gun if he/she wants one. Either limits can be placed on the right to do something or not.


Driving is a privilege. Not a right. Should someone with poor vision, poor motor skills, experience seizures or memory loss be restricted from voting? Should their right to privacy be revoked as well? Should someone who experiences seizures not be allowed to have an abortion?

You seem to be driving your car off the road and into a corn field.

I didn't compare the ownership or operation of a gun (or a vehicle) to that of voting, privacy or abortion.

But if you want to examine these things, okay ... the vote of an 88yo woman in a nursing home who has dementia can be contested. She likely didn't show up at the precinct on her own and filed by absentee ballot. Nobody but she can legally handle her ballot, and trust me, by the time she acts on her own to handle her ballot she will likely have written on it an order for eggs benedict for her breakfast, or some incomprehensible scribble. At that point, her ballot will not be honored for failure to follow directions. So, yeah, someone who has memory loss eventually becomes ineligible to vote.

Should whose right to privacy be revoked? Somebody with seizures or memory loss? I really don't get this question. With regard to the ownership and operation of a vehicle, the patient's physician is required to report any medical condition that would make it unlikely that the patient could safely operate a vehicle. That information goes to the state agency and stays there. Is that a violation of privacy? /shrugs/  Is your divorce filing private? No. Is your receipt of a driving violation private? No. Is the foreclosure on your home private? No. These are all public records in the state of Maryland, you can browse them here:

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/

The difference being Rights vs. Privileges. Rights should be treated equally across the land. If you are eligible to exercise your rights in Tennessee you should be able to exercise those same rights in California and everywhere in between. 

As shown in my previous responses, there have always been restrictions for the ownership and use of guns mostly because we agree that said ownership and use should be deemed responsible and not an absolute. Ergo, states can enact appropriate restrictions, just like they do for driving a vehicle. But again, the number of laws and regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm are quite sparse compared to the ownership and use of motor vehicles.


Is driving a First Amendment right? Is drinking alcohol a First Amendment right? Is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater a First Amendment right? According to the courts, no. Aren't they examples of restrictions on the freedom of expression? Yes.


Responsible car owners and responsible gun owners are on the same par. It is 100% possible to purchase a vehicle without notifying the government of anything.

No, it is not possible. Even if you show up with a flatbed tow to snag that new car off the lot or that antique vehicle out of grandma's garage, you STILL have to notify the state that you purchased the car. What if you don't? All kinds of hell can descend upon you, but most importantly you have no proof that you are the owner of the vehicle. Oh, you have the previous title signed on the back and you have a bill of sale specifying that car was sold to you and the signatures are notarized? Great! You better report the sale to the state within 30 days or risk getting fined or confiscation of the vehicle.

All VIN numbers are registered somewhere by someone ...

Just like it is 100% possible to purchase a gun without notifying the government of anything. Where you take your chances is in how and where you choose to use the items you have purchased.

At least we agree on that.


... You can trace a list of all owners for a particular vehicle but you cannot trace all owners of a firearm.

I got nothing.

See, that's what I mean. This is why I asked the context of your assertion that firearms are more regulated than the vehicles and drivers. Firearms have nowhere near the amount of regulation as the privilege of driving.



Please explain to me the context of your assertion that vehicle ownership and operation is less prohibitive than the ownership and operation of firearms.

On a federal level....drivers licenses are issued by the state in which you live in. Yet, They are accepted in all states as long as your licence is current and valid.

Guns. Not so much. Gotta get special permission to carry them through certain states, even when you are just driving through.

Not to beat the horse again, but my daughter went through far more steps to achieve her drivers license than she would have to complete to purchase a firearm, or perhaps at 17, for me to legally gift one to her. There are no regulations whatsoever.

So, perhaps your freedom to drive is by virtue of the extraordinary regulations that exist almost equally in all states. The very thing the NRA despises -- national databases -- are the fuel for driving your car from New York to California.


There are definitely laws concerning the use of firearms in every single state of the union.

I never said there weren't any laws at all.

There may not be enough laws (in your opinion) about owning them ...

Correct

... but you cannot legally carry one or fire one anytime or anywhere you please.

And neither can you own or operate a motor vehicle at anytime and anywhere you please.


You can't just use them however you see fit. 

Same for cars.

However, I think you would have to agree at this point that the regulations for cars and drivers are far more extensive than for guns and gun owners.


Owning and using are two different things. Owning and driving are two different things. I can own one clump of metal which requires a license to operate and as long as I have the license and insurance and registration, I can use that clump of metal in all the states without getting extra special permission. However, if I just keep it in my garage and never drive it, I need no license or registration if I never use it.

Incorrect. All vehicles require titling and registration -- you may not have to purchase plates for them, but you do have to tell the state you have them. Just try selling your car without a title --- a title that the state gives you --- the buyer will be reluctant to recognize that you have valid ownership, mainly because you never notified the state agency of your ownership and you lack valid documents.


The other clump of metal, I do not have to have a license but if I happen to have it on my possession in the wrong place without proper authority, I become a convicted felon...whether I have used it or not.

One is a protected right guaranteed by my constitution...the other isn't.

As we have discussed, your right is not guaranteed. It is not unconditional. Just ask any inmate in a prison. An inmate who never owned or used a gun -- one who simply got caught selling pot on three occasions and ended up in prison for life. No firearm for Mr High.

Is your freedom to travel unconditional? Nope. Try leaving the United States without a passport -- you won't get far. If you manage to enter another country, try returning to the US without a passport and see what kind of hassle you encounter. Citizens have been denied reentry into the US for many months or years even when they have valid birth certificates in hand. Is the freedom to roam not a right, as well?



So, in summary, the regulations for use of vehicles are greater than those of firearms. But, you don't like that circumstance because you think you have a Second Amendment right to go anywhere, unconditionally, with your firearm, concealed or not?  Why not just say that instead of debating about the greater amount of regulations for firearms that just don't exist?

I would much rather debate on what the Second Amendment really means rather than adhering to out-of-date, out-of-sync Supreme Court decisions that make firearms more available to citizens than fireworks or health insurance.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 19, 2013, 08:29:09 PM
I take a weapon with me when I drive  and when I go hiking in the woods.

I do both quite often, never felt the need for a gun. Why do you feel a gun is necessary for these two activities?


An important factor in discussing guns in civilian society is that it depends a great deal on local culture and the US is very heterogeneous.  What applies in NYC may not be relevant to the back woods of northern New Mexico where I live.

Which is why NYC has more regulations for firearms than New Mexico, but the NRA vehemently HATES that. The NRA thinks that every NYC resident should possess a firearm at all times. Why?


Just because you don't encounter violence in your area, doesn't mean that everybody else is equally secure.  There are about 10,000 homicides every year in the US (mostly committed with handguns).  This means that if you live in an area where the level of violence is below average, there are other regions where it is very high.  Compare NYC with Louisiana

I drive alone into West Baltimore often. Ever see the television show The Wire? It wasn't only about West Baltimore, it was filmed there. I've never felt the need for a gun. However, I do recall that wearing a white shirt and tie, having a buzzcut and driving a black 4-door American sedan with a yellow raincoat hanging in the back window ... caused every black man in West Baltimore to flee whenever I entered their neighborhoods. Self-protection is as much about appearance and attitude as it is about possessing a firearm that nobody can see. Took me a long time to figure out why nobody would answer their doors when I knocked.

Three people that I knew personally have been murdered here.  One was deliberately run down on the highway. Another was shot in the leg by an unseen shooter with a high power rifle.  He survived with a permanent limp but the passenger in his vehicle  was also shot and killed.    If you are a woman traveling alone and  break down on the highway at night or on a back road, you are in a very dangerous situation.

Why would someone shoot a high-powered rifle at a stranger? Just for kicks? If so, you have a problem of general lawlessness. Getting rundown by another car on the highway can happen anywhere. That is often the case in Russia. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=russian+dash+cam+compilation&sm=3)

My second cousin was shot to death in her workplace by her husband who entered the building with his shotgun and decided he didn't want her to exist any longer. My sister was a witness. This occurred in a state that is loaded with guns (no pun intended). Oh, and the husband possessed this firearm legally, but of course it wasn't registered, didn't have to be, and he didn't have to periodically prove that he was not mentally incapacitated -- though of course his defense attorney argued that very issue in court. He got out in 8 years for good behavior (justice was not served).


If you are hiking in the woods and you run across poachers you may be in serious trouble.

I grew up in a very wooded place where idiots poached deer, turkey and bears, frequently. The only fear that we had was that these idiots will mistake us for game. My brother used to be a DNR officer -- they never messed with him.


Then too, we have bear, cat and coyote here and if there has been a long drought, they get hungry and aggressive.   Not long ago a mountain came into my garage and took my cat.

Fair enough --- but you don't have to leave your property to use your firearm to defend yourself or your property from thieves or dangerous animals.


I have no objection to limiting the capacity of magazines but it's a waste of political capital.  With just a little practice a semi automatic weapon can be reloaded in under two seconds, about the length of time you might pause between shots to acquire a new target.  It's not worth fighting over.

Revolvers are lower capacity and slower to reload buuuut  here is Jerry Miculek firing 12 shots in 3 seconds out of a six shooter!

I think it all should be limited. I don't care how talented or inept the user might be.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: zvuv on November 19, 2013, 09:21:32 PM
I take a weapon with me when I drive  and when I go hiking in the woods.
I do both quite often, never felt the need for a gun. Why do you feel a gun is necessary for these two activities?


I explained this in that same post.






An important factor in discussing guns in civilian society is that it depends a great deal on local culture and the US is very heterogeneous.  What applies in NYC may not be relevant to the back woods of northern New Mexico where I live.

Which is why NYC has more regulations for firearms than New Mexico, but the NRA vehemently HATES that. The NRA thinks that every NYC resident should possess a firearm at all times. Why?

I carry no water for the NRA.  They can explain their own positions.




Three people that I knew personally have been murdered here.  One was deliberately run down on the highway. Another was shot in the leg by an unseen shooter with a high power rifle.  He survived with a permanent limp but the passenger in his vehicle  was also shot and killed.    If you are a woman traveling alone and  break down on the highway at night or on a back road, you are in a very dangerous situation.

Why would someone shoot a high-powered rifle at a stranger? Just for kicks? If so, you have a problem of general lawlessness. Getting rundown by another car on the highway can happen anywhere.

No one ever got to interview the shooter so all I have is speculation. It doesn't make sense to even ask this question unless it was rhetorical. I don't care why he was shot.  Point is, it's the sort of thing that happens here. This is a very rural area with considerable ethnic tension.  In addition a nearby town is a major staging point for drug traffic on its way north. 

My friend was murdered.  The driver had just run over his pregnant girl friend and when my friend stopped to help her, the driver turned around and ran him down.  It was quite deliberate.  The driver was convicted of murder. 

Yeah, we have a problem with lawlessness.  Duh!

If you are hiking in the woods and you run across poachers you may be in serious trouble.

I grew up in a very wooded place where idiots poached deer, turkey and bears, frequently. The only fear that we had was that these idiots will mistake us for game. My brother used to be a DNR officer -- they never messed with him.

People get murdered in the woods here.  It's especially dangerous if you happen across poachers.  My woods are not your woods.  Just because there is a forest in both places it does not mean the culture is the same. 


Then too, we have bear, cat and coyote here and if there has been a long drought, they get hungry and aggressive.   Not long ago a mountain came into my garage and took my cat.

Fair enough --- but you don't have to leave your property to use your firearm to defend yourself or your property from thieves or dangerous animals.

That cat, actually a mother and a juvenile, live in the canyon immediately behind the house.  There are more in the forests.  I would like to be able to leave my house on occasion  and perhaps even go for a hike.  I have in fact fired a shot in self defense to fend off an animal attack while hiking and I believe that had I not had a weapon with me,  I would have been badly hurt or killed.

This is a large country with a wide range of cultures and socio economic conditions,  it is rather parochial to extrapolate from  personal  experience in one area to  conditions in a  very different part of the country.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 19, 2013, 10:15:59 PM
No one ever got to interview the shooter so all I have is speculation. It doesn't make sense to even ask this question unless it was rhetorical. I don't care why he was shot. 

Somebody getting shot with a high-powered rifle (from a distance greater than just across the street?), begs the question of why it happened in the first place. To disregard the cause of a crime is to disregard the prevention of it. Carrying a firearm will not prevent someone from shooting you with a high-powered rifle from 100, 200 or 300 yards away. That is not a death by chance.

Point is, it's the sort of thing that happens here. This is a very rural area with considerable ethnic tension.  In addition a nearby town is a major staging point for drug traffic on its way north.

I will cancel my plans to move to New Mexico.


My friend was murdered.  The driver had just run over his pregnant girl friend and when my friend stopped to help her, the driver turned around and ran him down.  It was quite deliberate.  The driver was convicted of murder.

Would a firearm have prevented this? Unless you are Mrs Smith shooting at 3 specially modified BMWs while traveling on a freeway at 80mph, I don't think a firearm would accomplish all that much against a vehicle in motion.


People get murdered in the woods here.  It's especially dangerous if you happen across poachers. 

But why? Do people get murdered in the woods because they are intentionally taken there for disposal?

Are poachers really drug dealers that just seem like poachers? I don't understand why a poacher would shoot a human except to mistake that human for game. Dismissing the reason for these incidents just fosters confusion and fear.


My woods are not your woods.  Just because there is a forest in both places it does not mean the culture is the same. 

Considering the gun/hunting culture that was ever-present where I grew up, I don't know why the outcomes would be tremendously different. The problem of drug-running must be the proximate cause of the issues you cite.


That cat, actually a mother and a juvenile, live in the canyon immediately behind the house.  There are more in the forests.  I would like to be able to leave my house on occasion  and perhaps even go for a hike.  I have in fact fired a shot in self defense to fend off an animal attack while hiking and I believe that had I not had a weapon with me,  I would have been badly hurt or killed.

Okay. Fine.


This is a large country with a wide range of cultures and socio economic conditions,  it is rather parochial to extrapolate from  personal  experience in one area to  conditions in a  very different part of the country.

"Culture", per se, is an overarching theme among the local residents. You are saying that New Mexico residents are generally lawless. I have to wonder whether the easy availability of firearms magnifies this problem rather than reducing it.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 20, 2013, 12:40:27 AM
Responsible car owners and responsible gun owners are on the same par. It is 100% possible to purchase a vehicle without notifying the government of anything.

No, it is not possible.

I have lost the desire to argue any of the other finer points. And I didn't bother to read the rest of your post after this. I just want to say that you are flat fucking wrong about having to notify the government when you purchase a vehicle.

I can and have bought and sold vehicles between individual people. Yeah, we went through the motions of signing the title after the money was exchanged but after that either party could have ripped the title up and put the car in a garage and never registered it and no laws are broken unless we try to drive it down the road.

The government is not going to come knocking on our door asking us why neither of us registered the vehicle purchased/sold.

It simply doesn't happen.

Maybe I'll address the rest of your points tomorrow...but tonight...I'm not in the right frame of mind. I just want you to understand that you can buy a car from your neighbor or family member or complete stranger and never ever register the vehicle or report the purchase with the government.

As for my own registered vehicle. My tags expired in September. I still drive it roughly 50 miles everyday of the week.

How is that even possible considering how close an eye, you say, the government keeps on vehicles?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on November 20, 2013, 01:50:09 AM
Law breaker!

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 20, 2013, 06:43:30 AM
I can and have bought and sold vehicles between individual people. Yeah, we went through the motions of signing the title after the money was exchanged but after that either party could have ripped the title up and put the car in a garage and never registered it and no laws are broken unless we try to drive it down the road.

Then you don't own the car. A car title in your name is proof that you own the car, and the state is the one who gives you a title.

If you tear up the title for sale or otherwise lose it without getting a new one, or if you tear up the bill of sale or otherwise lose it (assuming one was even written), then you don't have any proof that you own the car. If you don't have proof that you own the car, you cannot title, register or use it. You would be in violation of the law of your state.

While a title can be "sold" a number of times to other individuals before reporting the sale(s) to the state, the only circumstance I know in which that can happen in excess of a 30-day period and still be legal is if you have a license from the state to be an automobile dealer.


The government is not going to come knocking on our door asking us why neither of us registered the vehicle purchased/sold.

It simply doesn't happen.

If the car is parked in your garage, unseen, unused, of course the government won't come after you. How many people buy cars, don't register them, park them in their garages and never use them? I'm not aware of any. Even my clients who like to collect cars, even Model Ts, get the titles transferred to their names so that they can prove they own the car even if the car sits untagged in a giant warehouse/museum.

I just want you to understand that you can buy a car from your neighbor or family member or complete stranger and never ever register the vehicle or report the purchase with the government.

I guess it is okay with you that you can buy cars, never title them, never use them and run the risk of not being the owner when you try to sell them?


As for my own registered vehicle. My tags expired in September. I still drive it roughly 50 miles everyday of the week.

How is that even possible considering how close an eye, you say, the government keeps on vehicles?

Mr Blackwell, I don't know where you live as it sounds like your state doesn't care at all about the ownership and operation of vehicles, which I find more than odd. I guess they don't care about collecting their taxes and fees for inspection, which is a whole lotta odd.

However, in all the states where I have lived the police watch for vehicles without plates or with expired plates. You will be pulled over, you will be checked out and you will be fined. The ability to drive around for a long time on non-existent/expired plates without being noticed is very rare -- we call that "lucky". Also, if the previous owner allows the insurance to lapse on a previously registered vehicle, the state starts contacting him to ask him all kinds of questions. I hope he has a copy of the bill of sale (unlikely one was completed on a private purchase) because the state is going to give him problems. Those license plates that he never removed from the car he sold? He will have to declare them stolen, which means that the car will be declared stolen. He can't prove that he sold the car, so he remains responsible for it until he can prove that it was sold or it was stolen.


So, you have a car or two in your garage, un-titled, un-registered, un-used? I don't see the point of that and I don't know anyone else who would see the point of that, either. But if that's what floats your boat go right ahead and keep doing it. That doesn't mean you are not in violation of state laws -- except, apparently, in your own state.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 20, 2013, 09:32:46 AM
As for my own registered vehicle. My tags expired in September. I still drive it roughly 50 miles everyday of the week.

As the gun proponents like to say, criminals are going to break laws.  Nothing you can do about it except shrug your shoulders and arm yourself...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Jag on November 20, 2013, 10:30:12 AM
Responsible car owners and responsible gun owners are on the same par. It is 100% possible to purchase a vehicle without notifying the government of anything.

No, it is not possible.

I have lost the desire to argue any of the other finer points.
We get that a lot here.
Quote
And I didn't bother to read the rest of your post after this.
It's obvious. Really, really obvious.
Quote
I just want to say that you are flat fucking wrong about having to notify the government when you purchase a vehicle.
Where do you live?
Quote
I can and have bought and sold vehicles between individual people. Yeah, we went through the motions of signing the title after the money was exchanged but after that either party could have ripped the title up and put the car in a garage and never registered it and no laws are broken unless we try to drive it down the road.
Isn't the most common reason people buy cars to drive them? Have you ever taken the series of actions you describe - bought a car, didn't register it, shredded the documentation that proved ownership, and drove it anyway? How long did you do this without getting pulled over and ticketed? You could have ended up in jail for driving a stolen vehicle and you are not so stupid as to not know this. This whole line of defense for your position is ridiculous - there are tons if things that people CAN do that are illegal, most of us don't so them and I bet you don't either.
Quote
The government is not going to come knocking on our door asking us why neither of us registered the vehicle purchased/sold.

It simply doesn't happen.
No one but you is suggesting that it would. Try responding to what IS being said.
Quote
Maybe I'll address the rest of your points tomorrow...but tonight...I'm not in the right frame of mind.
Yeah, see above: we get that a lot here.
Quote
I just want you to understand that you can buy a car from your neighbor or family member or complete stranger and never ever register the vehicle or report the purchase with the government.
This is hilarious. You have no clue, but are prepared to explain it to Greybeard of all people.
Quote
As for my own registered vehicle. My tags expired in September. I still drive it roughly 50 miles everyday of the week.
According to you, you never needed to do this in the first place, so why did you bother spending the money on tabs? You're contradicting yourself.
Quote
How is that even possible considering how close an eye, you say, the government keeps on vehicles?
Good luck with that "not renewing my tabs" idea you've got going there. The police are government employees at a local level of government in most municipalities that I'm aware of - go ahead and explain the nonsense you've posted here to the first one to pull you over. In fact, film it and share it with us once it happens. I'd love to see the expression on the officer's face when you tell him you don't need to follow the law because.... why? I haven't actually been able to locate a rationale in the nonsense you've posted so far.

You're arguing bullshit for the sake of arguing bullshit, and not very well.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 20, 2013, 06:37:14 PM
The parking lot outside where I work is shared between several business in the downtown area. One day, a young couple came inside asking if anyone drove that little black car parked outside because a van just side swiped it as it pulled out and kept driving. They wrote down the tag number.

Turns out, it was my co-worker's car that got clipped. So we called 911 non emergency and an officer showed up about 25 minutes later to take a report.

The young couple gave a description of the vehicle and the tag number and told them what they had seen.

The officer ran the number through his data base and it came up expired and the last vehicle it was registered to didn't match the description of the vehicle the young couple gave.

Officer said "sorry bout your luck" because there was nothing they could do.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 20, 2013, 08:15:15 PM
^^^I don't understand the significance of that to the car registration vs gun laws discussion.....

Anyway, back to the point. If laws are cumbersome and don't make logical sense, then otherwise law-abiding people are less likely to follow them. The state by state laws about guns don't seem to make a lot of sense. What do the gun owners on the site think of having a basic national gun registration/license law, covering some set of weapons, requiring a certain amount of training and expertise, that would be valid in every state?

I would also like to see some insurance fee or surcharge to cover the cost to society of gun fails. It is not fair to charge responsible gun owners for the stupid actions of the stupid people, but that is what it means to live in a society. That is what insurance always does. You share the risk and the costs. More guns=more gun fails=more costs to everyone.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Jag on November 20, 2013, 09:18:37 PM
The parking lot outside where I work is shared between several business in the downtown area. One day, a young couple came inside asking if anyone drove that little black car parked outside because a van just side swiped it as it pulled out and kept driving. They wrote down the tag number.

Turns out, it was my co-worker's car that got clipped. So we called 911 non emergency and an officer showed up about 25 minutes later to take a report.

The young couple gave a description of the vehicle and the tag number and told them what they had seen.

The officer ran the number through his data base and it came up expired and the last vehicle it was registered to didn't match the description of the vehicle the young couple gave.

Officer said "sorry bout your luck" because there was nothing they could do.
So? What does this have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 21, 2013, 08:16:26 AM
gunfail 44
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/19/1254692/-Responsible-gun-owners-are-safe-because-they-know-what-they-re-oops-BLAM-GunFAIL-XLIV

Quote
Another unusually active week in the categories of home invasion shootings (five) cop-involved GunFAILs (four), and hunting accidents (five). And there were three accidental discharges in retail stores this week, though one was in a gun shop, so that's either a little less of a surprise (since lots of people bring guns to gun shops) or perhaps more (since they're supposed to know what they're doing), depending on how you look at it. But I'm pretty sure gunfire at a Target store and a GNC are mostly unexpected. The second of those two incidents deserves special mention this week, since it took place in the context of an impromptu Second Amendment rights discussion. I might be assuming too much, but I'm guessing the discussion included a bit about being a law-abiding citizen and Responsible Gun OwnerTM, which makes it all the more surprising that the story ends, after the accidental discharge, with the perpetrator exclaiming that he "could not go down for this," before fleeing the store.

...continues
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 21, 2013, 06:37:51 PM
The parking lot outside where I work is shared between several business in the downtown area. One day, a young couple came inside asking if anyone drove that little black car parked outside because a van just side swiped it as it pulled out and kept driving. They wrote down the tag number.

Turns out, it was my co-worker's car that got clipped. So we called 911 non emergency and an officer showed up about 25 minutes later to take a report.

The young couple gave a description of the vehicle and the tag number and told them what they had seen.

The officer ran the number through his data base and it came up expired and the last vehicle it was registered to didn't match the description of the vehicle the young couple gave.

Officer said "sorry bout your luck" because there was nothing they could do.
So? What does this have to do with anything?

No, it is not possible.

I don't understand why You or Chronos or anyone else can't imagine a world where people do not always follow the laws. Or why Chronos argues that it is not even possible to violate the law in the first place.

That is all.

It's an argument fail in my book because if it was not possible to break the law....we wouldn't have any fucking criminals.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on November 21, 2013, 06:58:33 PM
It's a very convenient way of avoiding all the other stuff in his post that you want to pretend doesn't exist, isn't it?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 21, 2013, 08:53:38 PM
It's a very convenient way of avoiding all the other stuff in his post that you want to pretend doesn't exist, isn't it?

Very convenient and also perfectly honest to boot.

Please consider that no matter how many rules and regulations are imposed on any given activity...It will never be enough to actually prevent people from working their way around it or ignoring them or outright breaking them.

Considering the exorbitant amount of laws and regulations and taxes and tests involving ownership and use of automobiles compared to the carefree wild free-for-all surrounding gun ownership...there are still vastly more people killed or injured by the improper use of automobiles.

I know that vastly more people use automobiles everyday than guns but one thing I have never seen is a chart comparing the % of gun related death (excluding suicide) vs. automobile related death.

As a % of the number of automobiles and guns in circulation...which one actually causes more damage?

Maybe I should start an automobile fail thread.

 
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on November 22, 2013, 12:59:18 AM
So, when will you be advocating the dissolution of all those useless and troublesome laws that people always ignore?

Or were you not really saying what you meant, there?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 22, 2013, 07:00:40 AM
I don't understand why You or Chronos or anyone else can't imagine a world where people do not always follow the laws. Or why Chronos argues that it is not even possible to violate the law in the first place.

That is all.

It's an argument fail in my book because if it was not possible to break the law....we wouldn't have any fucking criminals.

I have never said it is impossible to violate the law(s), nor did I imply it. I see people violate laws/regulations all the time, at least specifically with respect to the ownership and operation of motor vehicles, but they don't usually get away with their violations for very long.

From the very beginning, I have stated that there are more laws/regulations for vehicle ownership and operation than there are for firearms. If you want me to recount the number of ways that people violate the laws/regulations for vehicle ownership or operations, I can easily do that. Nevertheless, the purpose of my lengthy responses was to counter your assertion that gun owners have to suffer with more laws/regulations than car owners or drivers.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 22, 2013, 07:58:54 AM
So, when will you be advocating the dissolution of all those useless and troublesome laws that people always ignore?

December 17th, 2015

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 22, 2013, 08:32:26 AM
Please consider that no matter how many rules and regulations are imposed on any given activity...It will never be enough to actually prevent people from working their way around it or ignoring them or outright breaking them.

While laws and regulations are designed to encourage proper behavior, all that laws and regulations can really accomplish is to specify punishments when violations occur.

People have been murdered ever since humans kept records (and likely well before that), so even laws that decree it is a violation to kill another human haven't stopped anyone from doing so but they do stipulate the penalty if one is found guilty.


Considering the exorbitant amount of laws and regulations and taxes and tests involving ownership and use of automobiles compared to the carefree wild free-for-all surrounding gun ownership ...

I sense you have become smarmy. You are much better than that.

.. there are still vastly more people killed or injured by the improper use of automobiles.

The other day I found the PDF at the CDC website on this issue, but I didn't bookmark it because I didn't think anyone was going to raise this particular issue. Silly me. The CDC site is too vast to find things quickly, so until I can locate the info again I will have to slum it at Wikipedia. This Wiki article shows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year) the same trend in vehicle deaths since the inception of the automobile.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Dv3LzDiEvBI/Uo9L9z8tjfI/AAAAAAAAAhY/Z5T9L_6r7oQ/w507-h680-no/Death-trend-automobiles.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)


The peak rate of auto deaths per 100K population was in 1937. The peak of automobile deaths (raw) was 1972. The rate of deaths per Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT = middle column), which is the gold standard for efficacy, shows that the rate of vehicular deaths (all circumstances) has been in a steady decline since the inception of the automobile despite an ever-growing population and an ever-increasing number of automobiles and miles traveled. You will note that the raw number of vehicle deaths in 2012 is about 33,000.

I found the chart at the CDC the other day that compared autos to firearms and it showed that the deaths by firearms are slightly less than the number of deaths by vehicles, 32,XXX. However, I can't find that chart today. Here is a Pew Research article (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/) that shows that in 2010 suicides by firearms were 19,392 and homocides by firearms were 11,078, which totals 30,470 deaths by firearms (unless there is another category that they didn't include).

If you wish to argue that the raw number of deaths by vehicles are greater than raw number of deaths by firearms, you would be correct, but just barely.

I know that vastly more people use automobiles everyday than guns but one thing I have never seen is a chart comparing the % of gun related death (excluding suicide) vs. automobile related death.

Correct, you won't. They can't. The comparison can't be made directly because there is no way to accurately compare the two more than the raw number of deaths.

First, since firearms aren't registered in the US, we really don't know the number of firearms that are actually out there so a comparison to the number of registered vehicles would not be accurate or helpful. Could some of the firearms produced in the US have been shipped out of the country? Yes. Second, as I stated above, the deaths by Vehicle Miles Traveled is the number to watch. That shows that through greater and greater usage of more and more automobiles, the rate of deaths has been on a downward trend for a long time.

One thing that should be noted is that by the late 1960s/early 1970s, the number of automobiles rapidly increased and so did the Vehicle Miles Traveled. Around that same time, due to various efforts to increase the laws and regulations for the safety of automobiles, most notably by Ralph Nader, the rate of deaths per VMT began to drop at a faster rate than before. As we have increased the regulations and requirements over the past 30 years the rate of deaths by VMT has been in a faster decline, and even more dramatically the rate of accidents by VMT has seen an even more dramatic decline.

While the creation of laws does not mean people will not violate them, by having laws and regulations in place that affect the head of the process (where cars are made, roads are designed and drivers are trained), we have been able to dramatically reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicular accidents, as well as the rate of vehicular accidents without injury.

What have we done to affect the head of the process for firearms? Very little. Everyone cries fowl when anyone attempts to do so.


As a % of the number of automobiles and guns in circulation...which one actually causes more damage?

Maybe I should start an automobile fail thread.

By their nature, firearms more routinely kill people than injure them. Vehicles more routinely injure people than kill them. As I stated above, the efforts to improve the design of vehicles and highways, and to improve the training and monitoring of drivers means fewer people are killed in vehicular accidents each year (and even fewer have been injured). In the vast majority of cases, deaths by firearms are intentional while deaths by vehicle are accidental.

The only way to accurately compare the two based on population, penetration or usage, would be to compare the number of bullets fired (rate of usage) with the number of VMT. But there is no way to compare the two. Although gun owners buy ammunition, that doesn't mean that the ammunition has been fired or even how much has been fired. Given the fear frenzy acquired by gun owners on their own (not to mention the fear frenzy caused by the media), gun owners have been stockpiling ammunition at a rate that likely has no comparison to any time in history. Ergo, we cannot compare the number of firearms deaths to the number of bullets purchased as we can the vehicular deaths to the number of miles driven. Most people buy cars to use them daily (or at least a couple of times a week). Most people do not shoot the guns they own weekly, and many do not shoot their guns annually. This would indicate people remain better trained in the usage of an automobile than the usage of a firearm.



Now, an interesting discussion would be, Do we care about the rate of deaths or injuries caused by either firearms or vehicles? Is the ownership and use of firearms and vehicles more important than the damages they cause?

There is a question about gun ownership with a subtle context: Since firearms are more often used for suicides than homocides, does the American "gun culture" desire firearms so citizens can easily commit suicide?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 22, 2013, 08:44:07 AM
Please consider that no matter how many rules and regulations are imposed on any given activity...It will never be enough to actually prevent people from working their way around it or ignoring them or outright breaking them.

Congratulations.  You have just argued away every law on the books.

...there are still vastly more people killed or injured by the improper use of automobiles.

Why do you think that might be?  I can think of a few reasons.

Here's another quandary: there are vastly more laws and regulations regarding commercial aircraft than cars, and there there vastly fewer airline accidents that kill people.  Why do you think that might be?


I know that vastly more people use automobiles everyday than guns...

you're starting to get it...


...but one thing I have never seen is a chart comparing the % of gun related death (excluding suicide) vs. automobile related death.

Oh gosh, I wonder where someone might find something like that?  Well, it's not sitting right in front of you, so I suppose it couldn't possibly exist out there anywhere.  You've done your due dilligence (by that I mean, "absolutely nothing"), so it's probably fair to give up and just assume you're right.

You know, if you put forth a little more effort, you might find some acutal data.  Or not, given that the NRA lobbied to have congress make it illegal for the CDC to study gunshot injuries.[1]

As a % of the number of automobiles and guns in circulation...which one actually causes more damage?

Now you're off track.  You are trying to justify a forgone conclusion rather than work through the problem rationally.  Try again.

Maybe I should start an automobile fail thread.

It is unlikely that would help you.
 1. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 22, 2013, 11:47:40 AM
The suicide angle is interesting.

For men especially, it is considered a bad thing to kill yourself; it's cowardly because you should be able to man up and face your problems. That is why men are more likely to "go postal" or commit "suicide by cop". Unfortunately they often take other people with them, like their family, co-workers and the cops. :(

Women just take too many pills and don't wake up. Men have to disguise suicide as something else, reckless drunk driving at night, for example. But if you "accidentally" shoot yourself to death while hunting or cleaning your gun, it's a kinda macho and acceptable. :?

I wonder how many people who own a gun say they want to protect themselves from the bad guys, but they really want to make sure they have a way out if they need it?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 22, 2013, 10:04:13 PM

As a % of the number of automobiles and guns in circulation...which one actually causes more damage?



When you use the word damage that implies any and all losses whether physical (bodily injury) or financial (loss of assets). Damages can also be partial or absolute. I cannot find the stats, but it would seem to me that firearms cause more absolute damages (death) rather than partial damages (injuries). Vehicles most frequently cause partial damages (for repairs/injuries) rather than absolute (total losses/deaths).

I believe you are trying to argue that vehicles cause more damages (of any kind) and, therefore, are rightfully regulated more than firearms. The problem is that because regulations have been progressively put in place, drivers have fewer and fewer accidents every year (insurance refers to this as frequency) but the cost of those accidents are increasing every year (insurance refers to this as severity). In this respect, "accidents" refer to any incidents causing damages regardless of any injuries or deaths involved.

Since we have few regulations for firearms, and in some cases even fewer regulations than before, how can we possibly compare the success of missing laws and regulations for firearms compared to the ever-present laws and regulations for operating a vehicle? Why can't we try some regulations on firearms and see how it works?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 22, 2013, 11:07:23 PM
Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on November 22, 2013, 11:08:46 PM
Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.
36,000 die each year in gun related violence/accidents.  More than in any other country.  Why do we need that?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 23, 2013, 05:35:30 PM
I am not sure what point Mr Blackwell is trying to make in comparing cars to guns. Gas ovens, computers, hammers and bathtubs are all very useful but can also kill and injure people. But we have not enshrined the ownership of any of those into our national laws, culture and psyche.

In the US we have a particular relationship to guns that many other cultures do not have. I teach college classes with perhaps half of the students from Africa, Asia, Latin Am and former Soviet countries. The rest are US students, mostly lower-middle to middle class.

Yesterday I mentioned in passing that I have a friend whose pre-teen children have their own guns (true) and the whole family is into range shooting. The kids from other countries thought I was making it up, like a tall tale about a family of yee-hah rodeo cowboys or spy kids. They cannot comprehend why anyone in their right mind would actually hand firearms to minor children and teach them to shoot.[1]

Several US students are from the opposite end-- what's wrong with teaching a child about guns and letting them shoot? It's part of being an American. The African students talk about the abuse and trauma of child soldiers. The Asian students ask why you would want a gun in your home to begin with. The Latin kids say you hire an armed guard if you are worried about protecting your kids from kidnapping. I find myself mediating an argument between people from different planets. It is hard for me to be neutral when I am so wary of guns around children-- even if your kids are very responsible and trustworthy, their friends may not be![2]

The same parents who gave a gun to their 10 and 12-year old kids would not let them drive the family car or stay home alone for a week. They do not think they are mature enough to vote in elections or watch x-rated videos, or to experiment with drugs and alcohol. They would protect them from anyone who tried to recruit them as soldiers. But it is okay to entrust those children with the power of life and death, even under supervision..... :o
 1. I know-- what could possibly go wrong? Kids never have tantrums or imagine stuff that is not true, do they?
 2. Look at the middle school bullying that drives some kids to attempt suicide. Look at the hazing rituals that high school students engage in. Look at the drunken parties that happen when parents are not at home. Add easy gun access. Hilarity most definitely does not ensue.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 23, 2013, 06:56:45 PM
The same parents who gave a gun to their 10 and 12-year old kids would not let them drive the family car or stay home alone for a week. They do not think they are mature enough to vote in elections or watch x-rated videos, or to experiment with drugs and alcohol. They would protect them from anyone who tried to recruit them as soldiers. But it is okay to entrust those children with the power of life and death, even under supervision..... :o

I have had the same discussion with two prominent, level-headed forum members that I like and admire for various reasons, but they both just said "depends" when asked what the most appropriate age is for learning to use a firearm. This was not a "depends" based on mental health or maturity of the juvenile, either (a consideration automatically assumed), it was in consideration of most normal circumstances -- an all else being equal situation. I think they felt a bit cornered in relation to their own ownership and/or use of firearms, perhaps that is a wrong assumption on my part.

This debate tells me just how far ingrained in our culture the possession of firearms is, not that these two members are gun nuts, per se, but that by their own experience it is a ... rite of passage, perhaps, for a young man, in particular but not exclusively, to learn how to use a firearm and to have one to call his own. These same members also realize that the answer of "depends" is the appropriate response to other personal events, such as the age of first sexual encounter or the consumption of alcohol, just as examples.



Given my position on the forum and my responses in this thread, I would like for it to be understood clearly that I am not in favor of getting rid of guns. It is a nice thought exercise and certainly other countries have accomplished it to a great extent and show better behavioral results than we can show in the US. On this point, I am a pragmatist. There are too many already, people have the expectation to possess them, so we can't get rid of all of them. But why can't they be subject to an equal amount of treatment under the law when they are as much a safety hazard (or more) as a power drill, blender, hair dryer, nail gun, jack hammer, kerosene heater ... or an automobile?

The US Constitution only granted a mention of "arms" because they were available at the time -- the limits of such technology. The writers of the Constitution could not have foreseen the other technological advances and products that have become available and for which we have various laws and regulations (the automobile being only one example). This context of the firearm being a Constitutional right compared to other things available in our culture that are equally or less damaging, but for which we are comfortable with laws and regulations, demonstrates that guns are considered as sacred to gun owners as Jesus is to Christians. The fervor outweighs the rationality.

With respect to the Constitution, we have amended it a number of times to resolve inequities, such as the abolition of slavery, womens' suffrage, prohibition and its repeal ... why are guns so sacred? Or maybe guns aren't any more sacred than the other issues but that guns are the issue of the day and appear more sacred. If this forum is dedicated to rationality, then we should have rational discussions on all issues.          I can only hope.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 23, 2013, 08:30:54 PM
 ^^^I agree completely. We have gotten to the point where it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about better policies for gun ownership in the US. If I bring up the way other countries deal with guns, I am accused of being anti-American. :?

Ironic, when it is worry about Americans killing each other and dying pointlessly that makes me want to talk about rational gun policy. If I did not care about America and Americans, I would just move to Canada and be done with it.[1]

We have started to become more sensible about homosexuality--it has taken decades, but being gay is no longer a big deal to many Americans. Compared to 50 years ago, we have made pretty rapid progress. I can remember, as a teen, being afraid to stand too close to the gay-related books in the bookstore for fear that people would suspect that I was gay. Yesterday I was looking for movies and looked through the LGBT section to see if there was anything interesting, the same way I looked at any other section. I felt no stigma or fear at all.[2]

We have started to act sensibly about drug use, at least as far as adults smoking weed is concerned. We have made some baby steps towards a universal health care program. Maybe we can make some progress on the gun thing, too. Sure, there will always be technology changing and some people will make their own garage band guns with 3-D printers. We will deal.  Just like we don't allow someone to drive a car they made in their backyard on the road unless it meets certain standards, the plastic guns will have to meet a certain standard to qualify as legal.

The world will not end if gun owners are limited to a certain set of weapons, have to get a permit to buy one and pass a safety test to get licensed, and pay a registration fee so there is a fund to cover gun fails. I have hope.

Then they can carry it around and be all bad-a$$.  Those of us who don't carry promise to cower and genuflect. Maybe we will even kneel like Loki wanted. Imagine him with a handgun in this scene instead of the staff. Wouldn't he look even cooler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1C6kqXT9XU

Nahh.

 1. I know that Canadians are also North Americans. Don't be pedantic. >:(
 2. And then I bought Star Trek: Into Darkness for some hot Benedict Cumberbatch ogling!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 24, 2013, 09:54:30 PM
Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

data and reference, please.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 24, 2013, 09:59:33 PM
also, I know it is irony, but i kind of want a gun to protect myself and Mrs Screwtape from the gun nuts when they start their inevitable "revolution".
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: MadBunny on November 24, 2013, 11:56:56 PM

Then they can carry it around and be all bad-a$$.  Those of us who don't carry promise to cower and genuflect. Maybe we will even kneel like Loki wanted. Imagine him with a handgun in this scene instead of the staff. Wouldn't he look even cooler?

Loki: "I wanna introduce you to a personal friend of mine. This is an M41A pulse rifle. Ten millimeter with over-and-under thirty millimeter pump action grenade launcher.

If a bunch of you had carried one of these babies to the opera with you I wouldn't be standing here giving you a speech about freedom from stuff." [1]

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/lokedloki_zps2121cf5b.jpg)[2]
 1. NRA wet dream scene.  Carry on.
 2. This is all somehow Obama's fault.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on November 25, 2013, 12:24:19 AM
Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

data and reference, please.

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/)

The ban expired on September 13, 2004

Despite Because of national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 25, 2013, 08:14:19 AM
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/)

The ban expired on September 13, 2004

Anyone with half of a brain (and there are a lot of people out there with more than half of a brain) knows that assault rifles do the least amount of death overall. You are more likely to be killed by a handgun in your own home than by an assault rifle. My local newspaper has a story of one that occurred recently -- appears to be another homocide-suicide among family members: mom, dad and infant son are no more. Death choice? Handgun.

You are skewing the gun debate by introducing assault rifles as the issue of assault rifles is a bit different than just Second Amendment rights or gun safety. Not only do assault rifles make for dramatic mass killings, like at schools, shopping malls or grocery stores, one has to wonder why anyone needs an assault rifle except for dramatic mass killings. I know people who have these firearms and they like to have them because they are fun. I would like to have some grenades because I think they are fun, but I am not allowed to possess grenades. Why?

Ultimately, a firearm isn't manufactured and sold because it is fun; it is manufactured and sold for a specific purpose. Nobody who goes out hunting for deer, turkey, squirrel, quail or snakes is going to use an assault rifle. For people hunting for other people, however, an assault rifle is the preferred weapon -- if available. Who is the largest consumer/user of assault rifles? The military. What is the primary purpose of an assault rifle in the military? To be able to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.  Hmmm.

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-7HIe2ZPL50U/UpNEX-YwllI/AAAAAAAAAhw/kn-F4CaOlaI/w546-h550-no/firearm-deaths-per-100k.png) (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)

The raw rate of deaths by firearms has been increasing over the years while the deaths per 100K has been jiggling up and down but is overall steady.  Compare that to the raw rate and deaths per 100K for vehicles: both have been in a steady decline (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24899.msg585026.html#msg585026). As time marches on it looks like death-by-firearms per 100K (10.3) will exceed that of automobiles (10.38).  Hmmmm. I wonder how that could be?


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nick on November 25, 2013, 08:38:53 AM
Another 13 yr old shot his 5 yr old brother over the weekend in Texas.  An accident, found a gun in the home and playing with it.  I guess that is the price of freedom.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 25, 2013, 09:58:52 AM
Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

data and reference, please.

<links>


thank you for that. 

Now, what is your point and how does this relate to it? Gun deaths dropped dramatically in the 90s.  So did overall crime.  According to the study you quoted and linked:
Quote
Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened

bold mine.
It's gone down, but no one really knows why. 


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 25, 2013, 04:34:32 PM
Violent crime rates depend on the percentages of young males in the population, how drug prohibition is handled, the unemployment rate, the availability of mental health care, etc.

This discussion is not about the criminal who really wants to rob a bank and kills someone along the way. Gun crime and gun violence where someone intentionally "and with malice aforethought", shoots another person, are different from the "gun fails" we are talking about. 

We are more concerned here with the numbers of people hurt and killed accidentally or unintentionally, who would probably have been fine if not for the presence of the loaded gun in the situation. The argument between friends that escalates and someone grabs a gun; the kid who finds the gun and starts playing with it; the people who shoot guns off accidentally while cleaning them, while getting ready to hunt, at the gun show, at the shooting range, or because they are just being stupid. :(
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on November 25, 2013, 06:01:31 PM
Gun violence has also been on a steady decline since it's peak in the early '90's. The decline continued even after the sunshine clause on the assault weapons ban expired and it became legal to purchase them again.

data and reference, please.

Can't participate much in this thread right now, nine credits of college plus job hunt (got laid off a few weeks ago, and strangely, being unemployed seems to be harder work than actually having a job).  But for whatever it may be worth, this came from my course materials for this week's homework.  The boldface is mine, everything else is original.

One aside, by the way… this is the first criminology course I've ever taken, and one thing I've learned is that crime is far, far more complicated than I ever would have thought.  The "fifty percent drop since 1973", for example, is probably not related -- at least, not in a significant way -- to firearms.  Prevailing theory actually holds that it is more likely due to the legalization and increased availability of abortion (and, to a lesser extent, contraceptives), reducing the number of unwanted births.

Yes, I'm trying to play nice, here.  Because I really need to avoid getting sucked into this discussion.  Homework is pounding me in the testicular region.  Urgh.


Quote
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BJS; MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 202/307-0703
NATION'S VIOLENT CRIME VICTIMIZATION RATE FALLS 10 PERCENT; 50 Percent Drop Since Survey Began in 1973

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The nation's violent crime rate fell 10 percent last year, continuing a trend observed since 1994, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. During the last 7 years the annual violent crime rate decreased about 50 percent – from 52 violent victimizations per 1,000 U.S. residents age 12 or older in 1994 to 25 per thousand in 2001. Violent victimization and property crime rates in 2001 are the lowest recorded since the National Crime Victimization Survey's inception in 1973. The number of criminal victimizations in 2001 was almost half that measured when the BJS survey commenced in 1973. There were an estimated 44 million personal and household crimes that year, compared to 24.2 million during 2001. In 2001 there were approximately 18.3 million property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft and household theft) and 5.7 million violent personal crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery and simple and aggravated assault). Last year's decline in violent crimes was primarily attributable to a drop in simple assaults. According to victim self-reports, most male victims of violence were victimized by strangers, whereas the majority of females were victimized by someone they knew ... About 1 in 3 victims of violence faced an offender armed with a weapon; 1 in 11 victims of violence said the offender had a firearm. Firearm use in crime has significantly declined - it accounted for 12 percent of all violent crime in 1994 and 9 percent in 2001. In 2001, victims reported that about 49 percent of violent crimes and 37 percent of property crimes they experienced were reported to police, a reporting rate similar to that in 2000 for both categories of crime. Violent victimizations against women were more likely to be brought to the attention of police than those against males. The data, from BJS' National Criminal Victimization Survey, a continuing survey of the U.S. public on their exposure to crime, also showed that between 1993 and 2001, a period in which the per capita rate of violence declined 50 percent and property crime fell 47 percent, specific crime categories showed the following declines: Rape/sexual assault - 56%; Robbery - 53; Aggravated assault - 56; Simple assault - 46; Household burglary - 51; Motor vehicle theft - 52; Household theft - 47. Between 1993 and 2000, FBI murder data show a decrease of 42 percent in the per capita rate of murder – a drop from 9.5 murders per 100,000 U.S. residents to 5.5 per 100,000 residents. The report, "Criminal Victimization 2001, Changes 2000-2001 with Trends 1993-2001" (NCJ-194610), was written by BJS statistician Callie Rennison. Single copies may be obtained by calling the BJS Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277. In addition, this document can be accessed at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv01.htm. For further information about the Bureau of Justice Statistics and other OJP programs, please see the OJP website at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov; Media calls should be directed to David Hess in OJP's Office of Congressional and Public Affairs at hessd@ojp.usdoj.gov or 202-307-0703. After hours: 877-859-8704.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 25, 2013, 10:32:55 PM
According to the study [Mr Blackwell] quoted and linked:
Quote
Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened

It's gone down, but no one really knows why.


The "fifty percent drop since 1973", for example, is probably not related -- at least, not in a significant way -- to firearms.  Prevailing theory actually holds that it is more likely due to the legalization and increased availability of abortion (and, to a lesser extent, contraceptives), reducing the number of unwanted births.


The only personal attribute that I have seen change since 1973 is our waistlines. People are getting progressively fatter each year, and you just have to consider that fatter people have a more difficult time in committing violent crimes. They just aren't physically fit.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: MadBunny on November 26, 2013, 12:02:51 AM
Well there is always the Donahue Levitt hypothesis.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

Presented in truncated form here. 

http://youtu.be/zk6gOeggViw
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on November 26, 2013, 08:31:04 AM
Interesting theory, but for now it relies more on correlation than causation, but perhaps it has teeth. What is a law-and-order Christian to do?

Black women have typically kept their unexpected pregnancies more than white women, and maybe that correlates to the high number of blacks in prison?

Amazing that data by race was not required to be recorded (http://prospect.org/article/demographics-abortion-its-not-what-you-think), but this data from 2009 (Table 13)(left-white, middle-black, right-other) (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm?s_cid=ss6108a1_w):

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-uoxjC_AoBiI/UpSe4HTuhFI/AAAAAAAAAiQ/jVTNCaa8qDM/w996-h452-no/cdc-abortion-2009.png)

indicates that abortion by black women is now occurring at a higher rate than for whites, and at a much higher ratio among black births. Perhaps 20 years from now we will see the black crime rate go down?



(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-2ME2vEbxJoo/UpSe4N7_dFI/AAAAAAAAAiM/LK0NAU3qGKs/w363-h225-no/abortion-ok.png)

I also find it interesting that Alaska legalized abortion before Roe v Wade. Amazing how such a (proclaimed) conservative state not only legalized abortion before Roe v Wade but is also a state where it remains legal, earning an A- from NARAL:

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-nEzImI-Z_s0/UpSgIw5AQ-I/AAAAAAAAAig/V_96pqB8AKQ/w1004-h192-no/ak-abortion-status.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state)

Where are the conservatives calling out Sarah Palin for her lack of effort to tighten abortion laws in her home state?


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on November 26, 2013, 04:12:11 PM
Alaskans decriminalized reefer back in the 1970's and got on with their lives. They tend to be "independents" and "libertarians" ie people who always vote Republican because they think Democrats are negro-loving commie hippie big government wusses, but who are ashamed of their party's hypocrisy, incompetence, ignorance and inability to actually govern.

Speaking of hypocrisy, Alaska is the most dependent state there is[1] on the federal government for their livelihoods. Without the federal government there would be no military bases, no highways, no postal service.  There would be no national parks--so no tourists and therefore no tourist  jobs.  There would be no food stamps or welfare, for all the "dog mushers", "trappers", "hunters" and "survivalists" who can't really survive that way.[2] Alaska is an artificial economy floating temporarily on big government and its natural resources. Like Dubai, only with snow instead of sand.
 1. also, too, along with Virginia
 2. I have met more than one Alaskan cabin-dweller claiming to "live off the land" who collected welfare checks and food stamps at a P.O. box and who took hot showers at the local university gym.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on November 26, 2013, 04:50:57 PM
Alaskans decriminalized reefer back in the 1970's and got on with their lives. They tend to be "independents" and "libertarians" ie people who always vote Republican because they think Democrats are negro-loving commie hippie big government wusses, but who are ashamed of their party's hypocrisy, incompetence, ignorance and inability to actually govern.

Speaking of hypocrisy, Alaska is the most dependent state there is[1] on the federal government for their livelihoods. Without the federal government there would be no military bases, no highways, no postal service.  There would be no national parks--so no tourists and therefore no tourist  jobs.  There would be no food stamps or welfare, for all the "dog mushers", "trappers", "hunters" and "survivalists" who can't really survive that way.[2] Alaska is an artificial economy floating temporarily on big government and its natural resources. Like Dubai, only with snow instead of sand.
 1. also, too, along with Virginia
 2. I have met more than one Alaskan cabin-dweller claiming to "live off the land" who collected welfare checks and food stamps at a P.O. box and who took hot showers at the local university gym.

don't forget their particular brand of socialism in the form of a check from oil companies for every alaskan citizen every year for sucking oil out of state owned land.

I kinda hate Alaskans.  buncha hypocrites.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on December 04, 2013, 03:38:14 PM
gun fail 45
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/26/1256222/-Oops-I-shot-my-gun-in-WalMart-and-or-the-train-station-didn-t-even-notice-GunFAIL-XLV

Quote
Other unique stories worthy of special note this week: A man cleaning his loaded gun in a Texas hotel room accidentally shot through the wall and killed a woman in the next room, right in front of her husband and teenage son. A customer with a gun in his car accidentally shot a mechanic at a Missouri car dealership when he dropped his car off for service and went to move the weapon. A woman waiting for a SEPTA train in Philadelphia was accidentally shot in the face by a man rummaging through a bag in which he kept his gun. Among all the train noise, he didn't even hear the shot, and was seen on surveillance tapes calmly shouldering his bag and leaving on the next train. An armored car driver left his gun behind in the bathroom of a school in Colorado (and is not even the first armored car driver to do this in a school this year). And the pastor of a Texas church, shooting at a skunk in his backyard, accidentally shot through his fence and hit a neighbor.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on December 04, 2013, 06:40:36 PM
The ones about people leaving guns in schools, etc. really make me nervous--if I saw a gun lying in a rest room, I don't even know what to do. Call 911 and wait until the police arrive, I suppose.  I don't want to touch a random gun in case it was used by a criminal and has fingerprints. It could be loaded and I could drop it.... :o

More guns around mean more guns forgotten in schools, etc. And these are sometimes people trained to use guns properly....imagine the chaos as more people get guns who are not even trained in firearm safety.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Jag on December 04, 2013, 07:05:42 PM
More guns around mean more guns forgotten in schools, etc. And these are sometimes people trained to use guns properly....imagine the chaos as more people get guns who are not even trained in firearm safety.
We require a license to drive a car for the sake of public safety, but suggesting that gun training be required in order to own one is apparently going too far.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on December 04, 2013, 11:27:11 PM
More guns around mean more guns forgotten in schools, etc. And these are sometimes people trained to use guns properly....imagine the chaos as more people get guns who are not even trained in firearm safety.
We require a license to drive a car for the sake of public safety, but suggesting that gun training be required in order to own one is apparently going too far.

To be fair, you don't need a license to own a car, do you? Just to drive one.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Jag on December 04, 2013, 11:57:19 PM
Sigh. I suppose that's a legitimate argument.  :(
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on December 05, 2013, 06:55:57 AM
To be fair, you don't need a license to own a car, do you? Just to drive one.

In Maryland, you at least need a state ID card which is just like a drivers license but without the privilege of driving.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on December 05, 2013, 06:59:49 AM
Not a gun fail, but a weapon fail, sorta ... just strange:

Florida man kills wife and son with crossbow, then slits throat (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/05/justice/florida-crossbow-killings/index.html)

Quote
(CNN) -- A South Florida man killed his wife and son with a crossbow, drove 460 miles to try and kill his other son, and then slit his own throat.

...

"I knew them. They were good neighbors. I never heard anything from the house -- no screaming, no fighting, nothing," neighbor Ana Maldonado, who is not related to the family, told WSVN.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on December 05, 2013, 08:46:12 AM
Gunfail 46
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/04/1257984/-GunFAIL-XLVI

19 children accidentally shot last week. 
34 guns found at airports.
4 stories of guns and schools.
I particularly like this one: http://www.news-leader.com/article/20131126/NEWS01/311260039/?nclick_check=1
I really dig that pro-gun people don't seem to mind that a guy like this can get a gun. Or rather, that they cannot think of anyways to prevent him from getting them which are acceptable to them. 


off topic but, I like the question he asks in the intro:
"By the way, is "outlaw country" like "gangsta rap?" Are we supposed to be outraged by it? Or is it just good ol' All-American fun?"

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: MadBunny on December 05, 2013, 10:28:33 AM
That's because to them the ideal world is much like a video game, where you can randomly find guns, ammo packs and health kits just strewn about.

Probably goes a long way to explain their health care objections as well.  I mean, why bother with insurance when you can just run over a medkit and stimpak whenever you're injured.  Save them up and they'll bring you back from the edge of death to perfect health in moments.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Graybeard on December 12, 2013, 08:02:24 AM
Summary of the 173 children killed since the Newtown Massacre one year ago: interactive map

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/12/21865625-newtown-anniversary-the-us-children-shot-to-death-since-sandy-hook-massacre?lite
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on December 13, 2013, 10:47:31 PM
gun fail 47
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/10/1259231/-Lowe-s-knows-I-have-a-gun-because-I-just-shot-myself-with-it-in-their-parking-lot-GunFAIL-XLVII

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on December 14, 2013, 05:28:30 PM
Imagine US military members being told to leave their firearms at work when they go home over the weekend:

It’s Simple: Fewer Guns, Fewer Suicides (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/12/gun_ownership_causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html)

Quote
In Israel most 18- to 21-year-olds are drafted into the Israeli Defense Forces and provided with military training—and weapons. Suicide among young IDF members is a serious problem. In an attempt to reduce suicides, the IDF tried a new policy in 2005, prohibiting most soldiers from bringing their weapons home over the weekends. Dr. Gad Lubin, the chief mental health officer for the IDF, and his co-authors estimate that this simple change reduced the total suicide rate among young IDF members by a stunning 40 percent. It’s worth noting that even though you might think that soldiers home for the weekend could easily delay suicide by a day or two, the authors did not find an increase in suicide rates during the weekdays. These results are consistent with interviews with near-fatal suicide survivors, who often say their decision was spontaneous and who typically go on to live long lives.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on December 18, 2013, 09:04:04 AM
gun fail 48.  some of the best gun fails yet.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/18/1261009/--I-can-do-anything-I-want-on-my-property-he-screamed-and-fired-three-more-rounds-GunFAIL-XLVIII

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: G-Roll on December 18, 2013, 11:47:15 AM
Imagine US military members being told to leave their firearms at work when they go home over the weekend:

It’s Simple: Fewer Guns, Fewer Suicides (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/12/gun_ownership_causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html)

Quote
In Israel most 18- to 21-year-olds are drafted into the Israeli Defense Forces and provided with military training—and weapons. Suicide among young IDF members is a serious problem. In an attempt to reduce suicides, the IDF tried a new policy in 2005, prohibiting most soldiers from bringing their weapons home over the weekends. Dr. Gad Lubin, the chief mental health officer for the IDF, and his co-authors estimate that this simple change reduced the total suicide rate among young IDF members by a stunning 40 percent. It’s worth noting that even though you might think that soldiers home for the weekend could easily delay suicide by a day or two, the authors did not find an increase in suicide rates during the weekdays. These results are consistent with interviews with near-fatal suicide survivors, who often say their decision was spontaneous and who typically go on to live long lives.

What? You mean their personal firearms? Or do you think they go to their actual homes where they live with gov issued firearms? The weapons are kept in the armory. Not someone's house.
It is weird to me that the Israeli army allows soldiers to bring their weapons home up until 2005. But then again European force don’t even have to shave so...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on December 18, 2013, 08:08:45 PM
From what I have seen sidearms can go home, assault rifles don't.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Spit on December 18, 2013, 11:49:17 PM
Guns kill people. People kill people. Peepholes kill people.  :police:
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on December 19, 2013, 11:13:25 AM
Gunfail 46
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/04/1257984/-GunFAIL-XLVI

19 children accidentally shot last week. 
34 guns found at airports.
4 stories of guns and schools.
I particularly like this one: http://www.news-leader.com/article/20131126/NEWS01/311260039/?nclick_check=1
I really dig that pro-gun people don't seem to mind that a guy like this can get a gun. Or rather, that they cannot think of anyways to prevent him from getting them which are acceptable to them. 


off topic but, I like the question he asks in the intro:
"By the way, is "outlaw country" like "gangsta rap?" Are we supposed to be outraged by it? Or is it just good ol' All-American fun?"


74 million kids went through their daily lives with out getting shot.
60 millionish kids went to school with out finding a gun.


10 times as many kids will die today in the family pool pond or bathtub as will be shot.
5 times as many will die in house fires.

Hell 40 kids annually are run over by their own school bus annually. 

accidental gun deaths of children are sad but there are many other ways to die that are far more pressing.   Probably half of the children deaths by gun could be reduced by training children in firearm safety.

I don't want one child to die of a gunshot but with 60 times as many kids dying per day in auto accidents I think gun fall into the catagory of a minor problem that does not require the stripping of my right to self defense.  I have raised 4 kids in a house with guns and not one has shot themselves or come close.  Guns are dangerous and kids should be made aware of them and their dangers.


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on December 19, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
Ahh, the "there are bigger problems in the world so please ignore this one" plea.  Works for almost all problems in all contexts, really.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on December 19, 2013, 03:35:28 PM
I don't want one child to die of a gunshot...

You could have just stopped there.  In fact, I think you should have.  Why didn't you? 

As I have explained to you at least once already, this thread is about supposedly responsible gun owners and the damage they cause.  It is not about car safety or pool safety or home safety.  So, a productive contribution to this thread would have been one that offered some ideas on how to move closer to the goal of people not accidentally being shot.

Instead, we get this:

... but with 60 times as many kids dying per day in auto accidents I think gun fall into the catagory of a minor problem that does not require the stripping of my right to self defense. 

Minor problem.  That's great.  So, you don't want any kids to die of gun shots, but you're not willing to do anything or change anything in any way to ensure they don't.     

How many dead kids is your self defense worth?  My guess is you'll dodge that question.  I also guess that the honest answer would be "every last kid in the world except my own".  That is not because I think you are especially self centered or callous or stupid.  It is because that is human nature. We cannot actually care about that many people.

So how many dead kids would be worth it for you to give up your gun?

I have raised 4 kids in a house with guns and not one has shot themselves or come close.  Guns are dangerous and kids should be made aware of them and their dangers.

Oh, well, as long as your kids are safe...

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on December 20, 2013, 01:31:34 PM
Even if your kids know about gun safety and would never mess around with your guns, can you say the same for all their friends? You can't prevent kids telling their friends about their dad and how he is all bada$$ with his guns. We have had several gun fails where a friend, neighbor or relative kid was the one firing the gun.

What other country-- relatively low in violent crime and not actively at war, claiming to be modern and civilized-- allows so many people to have access to so many weapons? From a world perspective, it is crazy to even be discussing an 18th century era "right to own a gun" versus people hurt and killed by guns. What made sense in scattered homesteads on the frontier with no police force and no communications system is an insane policy for most communities in the US today.[1]

The gun fails are the sad result of lots of normal people doing normal but stupid things with guns, like forgetting to unload it, forgetting that there were other people around, forgetting how powerful their gun is (can shoot through walls) and just plain forgetting it somewhere. It just seems way too easy to hurt or kill someone by accident. And that is a high cost for some people to have a psychological sense of safety and power.

I liken it to the people who think they need to drive a Hummer-- a tank-like vehicle designed for military use-- on city streets to feel safe and secure. Because they can.
 1. We don't let everyone today own horses, chickens, goats or pigs within city limits, just because people did it in the 18th century. Imagine if we had done that, but we now had genetically engineered super animals as big as buildings, that produced mountains of toxic waste and could shoot flames out of their eyes.....methinks we would be about changing those laws, don't you? We can change laws. We really can.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on December 20, 2013, 02:12:33 PM
What other country-- relatively low in violent crime and not actively at war, claiming to be modern and civilized-- allows so many people to have access to so many weapons?

There are several.  You can see for yourself here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

If you sort by "gun ownership per capita", you will see that the relationship between "being civilized" and gun ownership rate is not quite so simple as you might think.  If you look at just the top ten, you can point out that Yemen, Saudia Arabia, and Iraq (not very civilized countries, in my opinion) are in there.  On the other hand, so are Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden.  For numbers 11 thru 20, the pattern continues to hold, a mixture of countries both backward and civilized.  (Iceland, France, and Canada; Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman)

If you want to see a much more clear cut relationship regarding how civilized a country is, look up which countries still have capital punishment and how often they use it.  Ditto for corporal punishment, for that matter.

I'd go into this in more depth, but I don't have time right now.  I'm in the middle of finals -- I have a term paper to finish today, then preparation for a final on Saturday and another on Sunday.  I had forgotten what it's like to be in college.  Whuff!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on December 20, 2013, 08:09:37 PM
Thanks for the data. Interesting list. The US is still such an outlier with so many more guns per capita, almost twice as many as the next top ten. And I would not think that #2 Serbia is as safe from crime as the US but I may be wrong.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on December 20, 2013, 08:18:05 PM
Thanks for the data. Interesting list. The US is still such an outlier with so many more guns per capita, almost twice as many as the next top ten. And I would not think that #2 Serbia is as safe from crime as the US but I may be wrong.

I haven't looked into the crime rate in Serbia (too busy working on criminology in Puerto Rico for this term paper I'm supposed to be writing instead of posting here).  I'm sure there's data out there, though.

Yes, you're right, the United States per capita gun ownership rate is incredibly high.  I wonder what makes us so unusual in that regard.  It can't be simply because we have permissive gun laws -- there are other countries on that list with gun laws that are pretty permissive, and they don't have rates anywhere near as high as ours.

The one in particular on that list that always gets me, as I've mentioned before, is Iceland.  Handguns prohibited, long guns legal with a license that is pretty straightforward to get, per capita gun ownership rate about 30 guns per hundred people (on the high side, comparatively speaking), and arguably the most peaceful nation in the world.  I do wish we could figure out whatever it is that Iceland has, or is doing right, that we don't, so that we might be able to try to emulate it.

I'm going back to work on this paper now.  Really.  It's due tomorrow, so I have to finish it.  *grr*
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: magicmiles on December 20, 2013, 08:29:09 PM
What other country-- relatively low in violent crime and not actively at war, claiming to be modern and civilized-- allows so many people to have access to so many weapons?

There are several.  You can see for yourself here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country


Perhaps I'm too sceptical, but I suspect this list is hugely inaccurate. For starters, it has Colombia listed as only 6 guns per 100 people. Somehow I doubt that.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Azdgari on December 20, 2013, 08:40:51 PM
How many people in Columbia can afford a gun?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: magicmiles on December 20, 2013, 08:45:56 PM
I've no idea what guns cost in Colombia, but I suspect those involved with drugs and associated crime can afford plenty. I'm not suggesting more than 6 people in 100 own guns (although they might), but I suspect those who own guns own several. Of course, this is all just opinion, I haven't done any research.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on December 20, 2013, 08:49:00 PM
I've no idea what guns cost in Colombia, but I suspect those involved with drugs and associated crime can afford plenty. I'm not suggesting more than 6 people in 100 own guns (although they might), but I suspect those who own guns own several. Of course, this is all just opinion, I haven't done any research.

You may find this interesting.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/colombia
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: magicmiles on December 20, 2013, 08:51:21 PM
^^ Yep, chances are I'm completely wrong. Influenced by reports of constant drug related crime etc.

Now get back to your study and stop procrastinating.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on December 20, 2013, 08:56:01 PM
^^ Yep, chances are I'm completely wrong. Influenced by reports of constant drug related crime etc.

Colombia is a screwed-up mess in quite a few ways.

Quote
Now get back to your study and stop procrastinating.

I'm trying, dad!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on December 20, 2013, 10:35:45 PM
A sideshow on gun fails:

Dan Savage: Good Grief and Great Tits (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/good-grief-and-great-tits/Content?oid=18503580)
Sitting Down to Read Sarah Palin's Christmas Book While I Bake Christmas Cookies for My Family

Quote
This paragraph about gun shopping in December of 2012—one first grader at Sandy Hook was shot 11 times—ends with Palin bragging about her tits. I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on December 21, 2013, 07:01:30 AM
Thanks for the data. Interesting list. The US is still such an outlier with so many more guns per capita, almost twice as many as the next top ten.

Looking into this a little more before getting ready to hit the shower and get started reviewing for my criminology final today, I found the Global Peace Index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

If you sort the list by peacefulness and look at the ten most peaceful, you will find that only one of those ten countries (Japan) has highly restrictive gun laws.  The other countries' gun laws are mostly pretty permissive, with almost all of them falling in the top twenty of per capita gun ownership rate.  Iceland, in particular, which I've mentioned before, has somewhere around the 15th highest per capita gun ownership rate in the world, and it has consistently sat at number one on the GPI for the past several years.  Colombia, with its relatively low gun ownership rate, is at number 147.  Then, of course, there's the United States, which as we all know has the world's highest per capita gun ownership rate and checks in at number 100 on the GPI.  Yemen doesn't have a very proud showing, either.

All of which means that the relationship between gun ownership and violence in society is significantly more complicated than most people think.  Criminology in general is more complicated than most people think, as just one criminology course has already taught me -- my term paper, in fact, is on the insanely high homicide rate in Puerto Rico, and of all the research that I've done in various journals and newspapers and so on about how to address the problem, nobody is talking about gun laws.  They're talking about a hell of a lot of other things, though; there are various theories of homicide, and there is widespread disagreement among them.

And I need to get back to my own work on the subject.  Leaving now.  (Semester is over tomorrow night.  Looking forward to having this done with.  Bleah.)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on December 21, 2013, 02:52:59 PM
I agree with what you say. There are cultures where most of the men routinely walk around with a gun tucked into their waistbands. And, yet, shootings are rare.[1]

I lived in several poor countries where men walked into the bank with big machetes and knives on their belts and nobody blinked an eye. Because, although every man woman and child in the country knew how to use knives and machetes, it was unthinkable that someone would use a weapon like that on a person. (Until a civil war breaks out-- then all bets are off.) So the presence of weapons does not have to mean people use them on each other, as the Iceland case shows.

In some cultures people try to de-escalate conflict before it gets violent.
In the US we have a combination of lots of weapons around, coupled with the tendency to actually use them, and to have them loaded, easily available and ready for use. We have a culture that, historically and psychologically, seems to think that violence is a good way to solve all kinds of problems.
 
In the US, I can't tell you how many times in an argument I have heard one or both of the combatants threaten to "go home and get my gun". Guns are brought up whether there is a car accident, some moms whose kids cursed at each other, a fight between teen girls over a boy or a dispute among grad students over an unfair grade from a professor.

That need to bring a violent "Dirty Harry" resolution to any conflict is a bigger problem than the guns. But guns add the horrible element of instant, even accidental death from a distance, where fists, sticks, and even machetes and knives don't.
 1. Although some people will always do crazy sh!t with guns. I was on a bus once where the driver was drunk and shooting at donkeys out the window of the drivers seat. That could have gotten out of hand. :P
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on December 22, 2013, 09:39:15 AM
And I need to get back to my own work on the subject.  Leaving now.  (Semester is over tomorrow night.  Looking forward to having this done with.  Bleah.)

If it helps, I can give you a ban for a couple days.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: naemhni on December 22, 2013, 10:38:37 AM
And I need to get back to my own work on the subject.  Leaving now.  (Semester is over tomorrow night.  Looking forward to having this done with.  Bleah.)

If it helps, I can give you a ban for a couple days.

Thank you, but probably not necessary.  I have my psych final at 1:30 PM today and am currently reviewing for it (doing quite well on sample quizzes, so not terribly worried).  After the exam is done, I'll be wrapping up my term paper this evening, and then the semester is done.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 03, 2014, 08:30:10 AM
Some commentary on our gun mania, by Lt Col Robert Bateman

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313
Quote
We crossed the line some time ago, it has just taken me a while to get around to the topic. Sadly, that topic is now so brutally evident that I feel shame. Shame that I have not spoken out about before now -- shame for my country, shame that we have come to this point. One story tripped me.

   
Quote
A woman charged with killing a fellow Alabama fan after the end of last weekend's Iron Bowl football game was angry that the victim and others didn't seem upset over the Crimson Tide's loss to archrival Auburn, said the sister of the slain woman.

People, it is time to talk about guns.
...

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/responses-to-post-on-guns-bateman-122013
in response to the emails he received from the above essay.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-survivalism-123113
you must read the first link in this one on the survivalists. Must.


http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-lapierre-123113
Quote
Way back in 2007, I personally invited Wayne LaPierre, the director of the National Rifle Association, to live in Baghdad. I had been there, less than 24 months earlier, and I thought LaPierre might appreciate the opportunity to live in a society which lived up to his standards. Surprisingly, he never took this offer up, nor did he ever visit the troops in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter, which is, well, normal for him. He likes his guns, but he is really not cool with being surrounded by them, like he would have been, had he ever visited our troops in Baghdad, or Helmand, or Kabul…or basically anywhere.

In Iraq, every single household (with a male that is) may have one assault rifle. This seems to be Mr. Wayne LaPierre's ideal. And interestingly, we have a country (a couple, actually) where his vision exists. Iraq and Afghanistan.

...


Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: ParkingPlaces on January 04, 2014, 01:17:29 PM
It is so nice to know that when I'm shot to death, it will be by a small number of lunatics. That is so comforting.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on January 04, 2014, 07:05:57 PM
Once the Colonel said it was posted by the NRA, I knew anyone who sent an e-mail from there, never, most likely, ever read the Col.'s article.

I have this happen many times with my own work. Someone disagrees with something, others comes in defense of that person or thing. I once wrote a poem called "God Fuck America" and not only did people just reading the title (and most likely only the title) make comments about how anti-american I was but I was also a person who told "God" (apparently in the title) to fuck off.

I wrote once, years ago, a poem that had "fag" in the title and proceeded to get countless comments about how I hate gays though if they read the poem they would see that it was actually for homosexuality rather than against it.

Most people see or hear what they want, and never seem to want even to know the whole story. Someone says a word of phrase they don't like that person should be burned in hell or die.

I used to get actual death threats all the time. I haven't gotten one in a couple of years. Guess I am not as "bad" as I used to be. ;)

Anyway, I somewhat know how the Col feels, in the sense of death threats. Though one of mine actually bought a ticket to Orlando to come and kill me. Good times.

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 05, 2014, 12:05:04 AM
Most people see or hear what they want, and never seem to want even to know the whole story.

No, they don't want to know the whole story. Not only would having the whole story disrupt their pre-fab world view, it might also take a personal investment of time and some spare intellectual capacity to think prior to flinching. They also never ask a question about a situation; instead they bark a response to a question never asked.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 07, 2014, 09:49:07 AM
gun fail 49.  xmas eve edition
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1262912/-Accidentally-shot-by-an-otherwise-responsible-gun-owner-GunFAIL-XLIX

Quote
Another typical week. Unless you're one of the people who got shot, of course. Statistics-wise, this compilation records five cops as accidentally discharging their weapons, three neat freaks discharging guns they couldn't wait to clean, three generous patriots who shared Freedom Ingots with their neighbors (plus two more who kept it in-house, so to speak), two hunters who became the hunted, and two target shooters who became the targets.
...continued
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 09, 2014, 11:52:40 AM
gun fails 50 and 51

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/29/1264658/-Some-ass-got-shot-at-the-Home-Depot-And-it-was-attached-to-a-concealed-carrier-too-GunFAIL-L

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/08/1265789/-Welcome-to-Lowe-s-How-may-I-shoot-you-P-S-23-kids-accidentally-shot-last-week-GunFAIL-LI

also, kentucky rep accidentally discharges gun in the state house.  She's a dem, by the way.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/08/kentucky-lawmaker-discharges-gun-capitol-office/4373837/
her dismissiveness of the seriousness of the accident is breathtaking.  "“I'm a gun owner. It happens,"
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 13, 2014, 09:12:21 PM
Stand Your Ground ... all 4 square feet of it:

Retired cop guns down man for texting at Florida movie (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/13/22292711-retired-cop-guns-down-man-for-texting-at-florida-movie-sheriff)

Quote
A retired cop, irked that the couple in front of him were texting at a Mark Wahlberg war movie, opened fire in a Florida theater Monday, killing the man and wounding his wife, authorities said.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: DVZ3 on January 13, 2014, 09:38:09 PM

It's amazing to me that people honestly believe having a gun makes everything safer. People have emotions, tempers flare for any small, medium, or large (sorry for popcorn pun) altercation and the next thing you know... You have a man who goes to supposively alert the staff, then "probably" went to his car to get gun and..well.

The article says there were only 23 people in theater and could've just got up and moved seats. Something tells me this would've probably happened if it weren't for the psychology changing affects of the "I have a gun!" component.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 14, 2014, 10:16:51 AM
gunfail 52

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/13/1267203/-The-KY-legislator-who-fired-her-gun-in-the-state-capitol-isn-t-even-our-craziest-story-GunFAIL-LII

Quote
Take your pick from among the upstate New York restaurant patron who accidentally shot himself and his guest (but kept muttering about how he had a permit), the Rochester, New Hampshire, man shot in the head (and yet unhurt!) by a neighbor's gun cleaning accident, or the young Janesville, Wisconsin, man who thought he heard someone breaking into his 13-year-old sister's room, so he just blasted through the door without opening it. There was someone in there, of course. But yes, it was his sister. And no one else.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: MadBunny on January 14, 2014, 02:07:43 PM
http://aattp.org/conservative-blogger-speaking-at-freedom-rally-thinks-shooting-at-cars-with-california-plates-is-hilarious-video/


Know what we call people who laugh and joke about killing Americans? Terrorists.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 14, 2014, 08:16:05 PM
Know what we call people who laugh and joke about killing Americans? Terrorists.


If you are a Republican, then Democrats are terrorists.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 14, 2014, 08:16:33 PM
gunfail 52

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/13/1267203/-The-KY-legislator-who-fired-her-gun-in-the-state-capitol-isn-t-even-our-craziest-story-GunFAIL-LII

Quote
Take your pick from among the upstate New York restaurant patron who accidentally shot himself and his guest (but kept muttering about how he had a permit), the Rochester, New Hampshire, man shot in the head (and yet unhurt!) by a neighbor's gun cleaning accident, or the young Janesville, Wisconsin, man who thought he heard someone breaking into his 13-year-old sister's room, so he just blasted through the door without opening it. There was someone in there, of course. But yes, it was his sister. And no one else.


Isn't Janesville WI the home town of Paul Ryan?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: MadBunny on January 14, 2014, 08:28:45 PM
Know what we call people who laugh and joke about killing Americans? Terrorists.


If you are a Republican, then Democrats are terrorists.

So they claim.  Yet I don't hear Democrats saying this kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 14, 2014, 09:13:42 PM
So they claim.  Yet I don't hear Democrats saying this kind of stuff.

If you are a Democrat, then Republicans are just looney.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Nam on January 14, 2014, 11:38:33 PM
So they claim.  Yet I don't hear Democrats saying this kind of stuff.

If you are a Democrat, then Republicans are just looney.



Most of them, not all of them.

;)

Actually, if you not talk to Republicans about anything political, social, economical, dealing with the human body, about animals, or agricultural, anything dealing with or not dealing with the United States, about or not about guns, sex, people in general, or the like and how the weather effects us or doesn't, or anything to do with religion or the lack thereof, and a bevy of other things...they really are quite normal.

:)

-Nam
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 15, 2014, 04:27:38 PM
I was reading about the miserable coot that murdered the man in the theater when I found the Tampa Bay Times has a special section for Stand Your Ground
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

there is an excellent part of it that summarizes all the cases:
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

100 cases.  60 found justifiable under the law. 30 convicted. 10 pending.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 15, 2014, 09:59:35 PM
Sunglasses, briefcase, gloves, iPhone, AR-15 assault rifle ... I've forgotten them all when I return my rental cars:

Lauren Tannehill, Wife of Miami Dolphins Quarterback, Left Rifle in Rental Vehicle: Authorities (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Lauren-Tannehill-Wife-of-Miami-Dolphins-Quarterback-Left-Rifle-in-Rental-Car-Authorities-240359641.html)

Quote
Lauren Tannehill, the wife of Miami Dolphins starting quarterback Ryan Tannehill, left behind a high-powered rifle when she returned a rental vehicle recently, the Broward Sheriff’s Office said.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on January 16, 2014, 04:32:12 PM
Sunglasses, briefcase, gloves, iPhone, AR-15 assault rifle ... I've forgotten them all when I return my rental cars:

Lauren Tannehill, Wife of Miami Dolphins Quarterback, Left Rifle in Rental Vehicle: Authorities (http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Lauren-Tannehill-Wife-of-Miami-Dolphins-Quarterback-Left-Rifle-in-Rental-Car-Authorities-240359641.html)

Quote
Lauren Tannehill, the wife of Miami Dolphins starting quarterback Ryan Tannehill, left behind a high-powered rifle when she returned a rental vehicle recently, the Broward Sheriff’s Office said.

What else could she possibly have done but have her high powered rifle with her? You can't expect her to leave it at home unsupervised. An irresponsible, thoughtless person might get ahold of it.

Besides you never know when you might have a giant mutant cyborg raghead grizzly bear demon terrorist on PCP climb into your rental car and attack you. Some neighborhoods are just full of 'em. Get 'em in your sights and blammo! Merika is safe again.

I swear some people have watched too many scary movies, think there is danger around every corner-- and decided that a big gun was the answer. Yikes!
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on January 16, 2014, 04:34:46 PM
So they claim.  Yet I don't hear Democrats saying this kind of stuff.

If you are a Democrat, then Republicans are just looney.



Most of them, not all of them.

;)

Actually, if you not talk to Republicans about anything political, social, economical, dealing with the human body, about animals, or agricultural, anything dealing with or not dealing with the United States, about or not about guns, sex, people in general, or the like and how the weather effects us or doesn't, or anything to do with religion or the lack thereof, and a bevy of other things...they really are quite normal.

:)

-Nam

You know things have gotten crazy when any discussion of the weather--supposedly the most neutral of topics-- can become a political firestorm. Ooops. Not saying that there are more fires, storms or firestorms nowadays because of climate changes or anything. Sorry.  :?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 17, 2014, 09:22:06 AM
What else could she possibly have done but have her high powered rifle with her? You can't expect her to leave it at home unsupervised. An irresponsible, thoughtless person might get ahold of it.

In all fairness to the bimbo, it was in a case, so it could be that she went a'shootin' at a range or just bought it. 


edit - chose more judicious language.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: DumpsterFire on January 19, 2014, 11:46:14 AM
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/responses-to-post-on-guns-bateman-122013
in response to the emails he received from the above essay.

I checked out this link and the first post in the comments section was this beauty:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'."
— Isaac Asimov

I had not read it before, but it accurately describes so many aspects of life in the US.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 25, 2014, 01:40:48 PM
This hits close to home ... very popular high-end shopping mall ...

Three Dead in Shooting in Columbia Mall (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Columbia-Mall-shooting-Police-Active-Shooter-in-Columbia-Mall--241962941.html)

My guess is a jealous and/or psycho spouse or boyfriend.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on January 26, 2014, 09:33:51 PM
Scary. And the responses from some are about how more people should be carrying in public places. As if the gun fails don't matter. :(
 
People think that the real world is like a superhero movie where the good guys know exactly what is happening at all times, and the bad guy is easily discernible. (Plus, when the bad guy appears, the music changes so we know it's him.)

In real life, someone fires a gun in a crowded place, people start running and screaming,  there are echoes and ricochets,  smoke obscures vision and nobody can tell where shots are coming from.
 
So when[1] a gunman in a crowded place pulls out a weapon (or a suspected gunman pulls out what someone else thinks looks like a weapon) a whole lot more people can start firing off their guns. I know I would feel safer in public knowing that if anyone pulled out a weapon there would be lots of bullets flying in every direction.

Instead of just one possibly crazy, possibly armed guy for the police to track down, there would be multiple possible assailants, any one of which might be the original shooter. The police who show up at the scene will find dozens of people running around firing guns at each other. They would have no clue whether there is one crazy bad guy being subdued by legally armed patriots defending their liberty, or if there is a gang war going on, or if it is a terrorist attack. Plus, most people with guns are not accurate shots to begin with so nobody will be able to tell who is really trying to shoot someone or what they are aiming at.

Plainclothes police or security folks in pursuit of the bad guy who pull out their weapons would get shot in the confusion. You know it.

Everyone is safer with more guns around. Right? Right? &)
 1. In the US today, it sadly has to be when, not if.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 27, 2014, 10:24:21 AM
gun fail 53
53  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/22/1268968/-Shot-in-the-face-by-my-own-pants-Respect-the-culture-GunFAIL-LIII

Faves: #1, 7, and 35. 
From 35:
Quote
The former Marine has extensive weapons training he was also a safety officer at a gun range for 15 years. "I'm a huge firearm proponent so that it happened to me is almost doubley painful that I injured my own daughter doing something that I would have told someone else they probably shouldn't have been doing"

experts and responsbile gun owners, indeed.  That's the human condition.  And the penalty for mistakes with guns is really high.  If the gun owner were the only one paying that penalty, I'd be all for it.  But so often it is everyone around them who is at risk.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 27, 2014, 01:32:24 PM
So even those with extensive weapons training fuck up in their own homes. Hmmm... is he still a huge firearm proponent?


Looks like Darion Aguilar may have committed a random act of violence. If so, he was not very good at his craft. I know that mall well, and he could have just fired from the second floor down to the food court and hit any of the 200 people who are normally there.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 27, 2014, 02:12:22 PM
Another one from LtCo Bateman

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-g2r-ammunition-012714
Quote
...Here is one for you. Did you know -- because I sure as hell did not -- that more than 230,000 weapons are stolen from "law abiding citizens" every year? Yep, the "law abiding citizens" are effectively acting like the world's largest Wal-Mart for guns, for free, to criminals. Yeah, they do not mean to, but then they are apparently not smart enough to secure their weapons, so they are stolen, by the hundreds of thousands. ...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 28, 2014, 09:21:47 AM
gun fail 54
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/26/1270763/-Are-you-a-school-shooter-if-you-bring-a-gun-for-safety-but-accidentally-shoot-yourself-GunFAIL-LIV

Quote
Five cops and/or security guards were involved in GunFAIL incidents in the past week, ranging from the guy who was hired as a bouncer to keep guns out of a neighborhood party, but ended up somehow losing his gun during that party, to the BART officer accidentally shot and killed by another in the line of duty.

Gun owners continued, as always, to have very public accidents as well, with five of them accidentally discharging their weapons at a skating rink, a motel, a gun shop (surprise!), a hospital, and an elementary school. Yes, that last one was our first armed parent to have an accidental discharge on the grounds of the elementary school from which he was picking up his kids. And yes, that parent is a former police officer and a firearms trainer who teaches concealed carry permit classes.

a good link from that is the TSA blog:
http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/01/tsa-blog-year-in-review-2013.html
1813 guns found in carry on bags, up 16% from 2012.  81% were loaded.   The comments express almost unanimous hate of TSA.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 29, 2014, 06:36:01 AM
#20, Mother shoots son

Quote
"Everyone present said it was accidental and the family is cooperating fully." The gun had previously malfunctioned by firing without anyone pulling the trigger, the family told police.

So, if it fires without pulling the trigger, then by all means keep it around for repeat performances in a game of lets-see-who-dies-this-week.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 29, 2014, 08:24:40 AM
^ natural selection at work.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on January 29, 2014, 10:05:35 AM
not exactly a gun fail in the sense of the ones listed here.  But it is a failure of our system, regardless.
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/UPDATE-Two-Men-Shot-to-Death-by-Homeowner-in-Barboursville-241973841.html
Quote
According to the criminal complaint, Black told detectives in his statement that he saw two men “shaking the door on his tool shed in his backyard.” He said he then “reached and got his .243 and loaded the gun and pointed the gun out of his window and the shot the first male and then pulled the bolt action back and fired another shot and hit the other male.”

Black also told deputies in his statement that the “did not warn them nor did he call 911 when saw them.”

He also advised that “no first aid was given after the incident.”

Sheriff McComas said in a release on Sunday that Garrick Hopkins had recently purchased the lot adjacent to #12 Lane Drive.

McComas says he took his brother to the property Saturday to show him where he and his family were planning to build their new home in the coming weeks.

The Sheriff says the outbuilding in question was on the Hopkins property and contained no belonging of Mr. Black’s.

Inside Black's home, McComas says detectives seized a large number of weapons and ammunition.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on January 29, 2014, 02:52:42 PM
Florida is exporting its policy of shoot-first-and-don't-ask-any-questions-because-you-don't-give-a-damn.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on January 29, 2014, 05:45:54 PM
Yes. Now you can "stand anybody's and anything's ground". He was looking at me my shed his shed funny. So I shot him.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 04, 2014, 10:01:44 AM
NY Times did their own version of Gun Fail. The results:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/opinion/nocera-the-gun-report-1-year-later.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Quote
We do a Google News search each weekday morning for the previous day’s shootings and then list them. Most days, we have been finding between 20 and 30 shootings; on Mondays, when we also add the weekend’s violence, the number is usually well over 100.
...
First, the biggest surprise, especially early on, was how frequently either a child accidentally shot another child — using a loaded gun that happened to be lying around — or an adult accidentally shot a child while handling a loaded gun.
...
Second, the N.R.A. shibboleth that having a gun in one’s house makes you safer is demonstrably untrue.
...
More to the point, there are an increasing number of gun deaths that are the result of an argument — often fueled by alcohol — among friends, neighbors and family members.
...
(more)

link to NYT gun report: http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/category/gun-report/
some great stuff there.


edit:
In florida (of course), anyone can set up a shooting range on their property, pretty much without any kind of regulation.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/26/3895027/big-pine-key-homeowner-has-gun.html
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 06, 2014, 08:51:51 AM
gunfail 55
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/04/1272521/-Stand-Your-Ground-even-if-it-s-not-yours-and-actually-belongs-to-the-people-you-shoot-GunFAIL-LV

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 19, 2014, 04:14:27 PM
So you may have heard that Michael Dunn, the guy shot shot a car full of black teenagers for playing loud "thug" music, was convicted of three counts of attempted murder, but not first degree murder.  That caused a mistrial.  He may be tried again for murder, but maybe not.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-michael-dunn-verdict-021714


Here we have a parallel case - a guy shoots up a car full of teens because they egged and TP'd his car, and one of them was killed.  I bet he is convicted of murder and may even get the death penalty.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/17/adrian-broadway-egging-gunned-down_n_4803038.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

The difference?  The perpetrator in this case is black.  Notice too, he is being charged with terrorism.  Maybe they won't even need to bother with a trial for him?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 19, 2014, 04:23:21 PM
gun fail 56
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/12/1274438/-Dear-My-Own-Parenting-Advice-Column-I-never-thought-this-would-happen-to-me-GunFAIL-LVI
Quote
a 17-month-old girl shot by her 3-year-old brother, who found dad's gun kept securely atop his bedroom dresser. Those who prefer to call such incidents ParentFAIL will perhaps be surprised to learn that dad's the local parenting advice columnist.

gun fail 57
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/19/1276171/-First-gun-show-accident-of-2014-continues-avg-1-per-month-streak-into-3rd-year-GunFAIL-LVII

the first one:
Quote
Police Sgt. John P. Hart has been suspended 10 days without pay for leaving his gun, which was recovered, in a restroom at the Holyoke Mall at Ingleside Nov. 24, Chief James M. Neiswanger said Wednesday. This was Hart's second weapon misplacement in two years; he was suspended for losing a sniper rifle in 2011 that was recovered as well

yay cops.  feel safer?
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on February 20, 2014, 06:40:54 AM
Quote
Police Sgt. John P. Hart has been suspended 10 days without pay for leaving his gun, which was recovered, in a restroom at the Holyoke Mall at Ingleside Nov. 24, Chief James M. Neiswanger said Wednesday. This was Hart's second weapon misplacement in two years; he was suspended for losing a sniper rifle in 2011 that was recovered as well

yay cops.  feel safer?

WTF? He lost a frikkin sniper rifle and still gets to carry a gun. When he gets back on duty he should be made to carry a banana in his holster for at least 2 years.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on February 20, 2014, 07:18:56 AM
gun fail 56
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/12/1274438/-Dear-My-Own-Parenting-Advice-Column-I-never-thought-this-would-happen-to-me-GunFAIL-LVI
Quote
a 17-month-old girl shot by her 3-year-old brother, who found dad's gun kept securely atop his bedroom dresser. Those who prefer to call such incidents ParentFAIL will perhaps be surprised to learn that dad's the local parenting advice columnist.

And he's a car salesman and a youth pastor, too. Oh, don't those go hand-in-hand?   </snark>

Quote

Carper said he left his 9 mm handgun in a secret compartment on top of a dresser as his Patterson Springs home was being remodeled ...

Carper, who regularly submits a parenting column to Gazette sister paper The Shelby Star and is a church youth leader. (http://www.gastongazette.com/spotlight/3-year-old-shoots-17-month-old-sibling-updated-1.273619)


I call bullshit. When you leave a gun that is in an unlocked area/container/thingy while kids are around (and actually when anyone is around), you immediately lose your credentials to give parenting advice. But, he does live in North Carolina, and I am sure he is a Good ChristianTM, so I am also sure that he will give testimony, a weepy performance of humility in church and will continue to provide parenting advice columns to locals because too many people will be stupid enough to read it.


Also, he's locked his Twitter account.   I wonder why ...



Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on February 20, 2014, 07:21:53 AM
WTF? He lost a frikkin sniper rifle and still gets to carry a gun. When he gets back on duty he should be made to carry a banana in his holster for at least 2 years.

I guess you could call it on-the-job training. Only 2 firearms lost in 2 years. He's getting better.


My company freaks out if you lose a company-issued cell phone.

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 20, 2014, 09:12:13 AM
WTF? He lost a frikkin sniper rifle and still gets to carry a gun. When he gets back on duty he should be made to carry a banana in his holster for at least 2 years.

This is one of my biggest gripes.  That obvious idiots and imbiciles are allowed to continue to carry engines of death at their hips even after conclusively and irrevokably proving they are unfit to weild safety scissors, because FREEDOM! 

That cop should be fired and his named entered into a national database that prevents him from getting a job as a cop or security guard anywhere in the US.  Said database should also be used for gun background checks, as anyone in it should be inellegible to own a projectile weapon more advanced than a javelin.   

Great leapin jesus, what the fck is wrong with my country?

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 20, 2014, 03:55:40 PM
sure to be a gun fail
Quote
In the moments after lawmakers and visitors cleared a committee room Feb. 6 following a debate on concealed handgun permits, Rep. Jonathan Singer found a black canvas bag under the table where lawmakers sit.

Inside, Singer discovered a loaded handgun that belonged to Rep. Jared Wright, R-Fruita, who sits next to him on the House Local Government committee.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/topic/jonathan-singer/

Wright is a former cop, so for some reason that means he gets to take a gun anywhere he wants.


edit: forgot link
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on February 20, 2014, 05:17:58 PM
Can't we get people who lose their weapons in public places some nice, calm janitorial work and replace them with other folks who can better keep up with a loaded gun? Is that too much to ask for basic public safety and common sense? Isn't there still a recession on? Aren't there qualified people looking for jobs? Is this too many rhetorical questions?  :police:
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 21, 2014, 09:01:35 AM
Excellent piece advocating for banning the second amendment. 
http://theweek.com/article/index/256692/ban-the-second-amendment
Quote
Imagine the Second Amendment didn't exist, and try arguing for a constitutional right to gun ownership. You will fail.

It links several articles at the American Conservative for support.  read those too.  They are good.  I believe I posted one of them already.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 21, 2014, 10:25:37 AM
A rather bombastic op-ed on guns
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/19/more-guns-means-more-not-fewer-calls-to-the-police/

Quote
Of course, the major flaw in this fantasy is that gun nuts are actually more, not less, likely to have to deal with the police. If your attitude is shoot first, it’s not like the cops won’t be called when you fire that gun. Ask Michael Dunn or George Zimmerman. The major difference is that if you act like the “protected” class that French has so much disdain for, odds are much lower that you’re going to shoot an innocent person in a bout of paranoid racist idiocy. So there’s that. But the notion that we can somehow get past the need for policing if everyone just arms themselves is painfully stupid.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on February 25, 2014, 10:42:48 PM
A different kind of gun fail:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2014/02/24/tsr-dnt-foreman-senate-candidate-doctor-web-postings.cnn.html
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 26, 2014, 11:04:51 AM
LtCo Bateman on guns, again
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-nra-gun-accidents-022514

Quote
We lose more than 1,000 Americans per year just to accidents. (Although the police, perhaps for legal reasons, counted this as a suicide.) Not to mix apples and oranges, but back in 2006, the grand total of gun deaths in the nation of 126 million known as Japan was two. Yeah, two. The next year when it "skyrocketed" to 22, it was a national political scandal.

Look, I know we are not culturally anything like the Japanese. But we have 30,000-plus dead per year and they have two? Are we really that inferior? I mean, just in our accidental rate, we so far outstrip even the deliberate rates of any developed nation, making us the laughingstock.

It goes on to criticize Ted Nugent for being a liar and a coward, and the NRA for using him as their poster boy.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on February 26, 2014, 12:55:40 PM
indiana man accidentally kills himself while trying to sell a gun
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/23/indiana-man-accidentally-shoots-himself-dead-during-gun-sale/
Quote
A Fort Wayne, Indiana man is dead after the gun he was selling to a relative accidentally discharged into his chest.

Fort Wayne Police said that the man, whose name has not been released, was selling the gun to a relative in his Fort Wayne home when it went off. At least a dozen police cars arrived on the scene approximately 8 p.m. and began to administer first aid.

...
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on February 26, 2014, 04:14:54 PM
[gun nut logic]

See, that guy was not killed because he was handling a loaded gun; guns are perfectly safe-- he would have been more likely to die while selling a friend a bottle of rat poison, a baseball bat, a knife or a moving car....

The real problem is the liberals who want to put fluoride in the water, make our kids worship dirt, and take away that guy's right to defend himself from his friend while selling his gun to his friend.

I mean, the "friend" might have been a cleverly disguised illegal brown person sent by the Muslim Obama administration to confiscate the responsible Christian guy's constitutionally protected gun. (Thanks, Obama.)

The illegal terrorist operative might have whipped out his gun first and shot the guy, and assaulted his wife, and then where would we be? In a tyrannical atheistic gun-free zone like North Korea, run by the New Black Panther Party, that's where. That's why every citizen should be able to open carry missile launchers in national parks, grade schools and shopping malls. &)

Guns are never the problem; lack of sufficient firepower is the problem.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on March 03, 2014, 11:08:47 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/when-may-i-shoot-a-student.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Quote
TO the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:
In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?

I am a biology professor, not a lawyer, and I had never considered bringing a gun to work until now. But since many of my students are likely to be armed, I thought it would be a good idea to even the playing field.

...(continues)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on March 03, 2014, 11:17:52 AM
gun fail 58.  yay!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/27/1277815/-As-SC-considers-allowing-guns-in-bars-15-people-are-accidentally-hit-in-bars-GunFAIL-LVIII

Quote
Twenty people were found to have accidentally shot themselves;
seven people made the news cleaning loaded guns;
six law enforcement officers were involved in gun whoopsies;
five selfless patriots made their fellow citizens safer by accidentally discharging their weapons while shopping, dining or running other routine errands (and four of them were licensed concealed carriers, supposedly "specially trained" to avoid these things);
and five more decided to share their freedom missiles with neighbors.
Four others had gun accidents while fiddling with and/or showing off their guns for no particular reason,
four practicing at the range accidentally shot themselves or others (in one case, someone half a mile away),
two accidentally shot humans while hunting, and
two more accidentally shot themselves while producing weapons for what they said was defensive use.

love this one:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-man-shoots-himself-in-foot-fending-off-robbery-20140217,0,2784011.story
Quote
A 16-year-old boy accidentally shot himself in the foot while trying to defend himself during a robbery in the East Garfield Park neighborhood, authorities said.

the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun... provided he doesn't accidentally shoot himself.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on March 03, 2014, 11:28:08 AM
Quote
A New Orleans police lieutenant's gun accidentally fired as he pistol-whipped a combative man in the French Quarter over the weekend, according to records obtained Wednesday. No one was struck by the bullet. Lt. Kevin Imbraguglio pulled his department-issued Glock from his holster only after his Taser failed to subdue the man and the officer "feared for his safety," police spokeswoman Remi Braden said Wednesday. The officer was trying to stop the man, who appeared intoxicated, after a woman said he had punched her store window.

Accidental discharge whilst pistol whipping a tazered man because the cop "feared for his safety"

Oh the irony.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on March 04, 2014, 04:15:20 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/when-may-i-shoot-a-student.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Quote
TO the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:
In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?

I am a biology professor, not a lawyer, and I had never considered bringing a gun to work until now. But since many of my students are likely to be armed, I thought it would be a good idea to even the playing field.

...(continues)

This same article was posted on the shared board in my building today.

And why not? What every modern college campus needs is more guns! As long as everyone is openly carrying, and there are generous allowances made for the poor eyesight, shakier aim and slower reflexes of professors.

When we make a mistake on a student's record we are allowed to initiate a grade change procedure. We should get the same leeway for shooting Mr. Lee by mistake when we were aiming for Ms. Li.  An online form explaining the discrepancy should cover it-- and such mishaps would encourage students to distinguish themselves better in class.

Group cohesion in the classroom would increase as students learn to lay down cover fire for each other when discussions of controversial issues get out of hand. I am sure that our generous state legislature will allocate sufficient funds to handle any wrongful death lawsuits. 

I plan to propose this at the next union meeting.  Adjunct instructors will be allowed semiautomatic handguns only. People on the tenure track will be offered their choice of high-powered rifles. Full professors such as myself will be allowed shoulder mounted rocket launchers. Students would only be allowed single shot muskets.

Over time, as they gain experience, we might gradually raise the caliber of our students....[1]
 1. That one was too easy-- I am surprised the original author did not go there! :angel:
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on March 05, 2014, 09:42:43 AM
I don't think you want high powered rifles.  They are more appropos for hitting targets at longer distance.  I think you want something for close range.  I'd recommend a tactical, semi-automatic shotgun. This was the one I was considering until Mrs Screwtape put the kaibosh on it:
http://www.mossberg.com/product/shotguns-autoloading-mossberg-930-special-purpose-tactical-5-shot/85336

This one is a 5 shot.  They make an 8 shot version of it.  In NJ, a semi-automatic with more that 5 shots is considered an assault weapon and is illegal, so that one was out for me.  But since you will potentially be facing multiple students, I recommend you go with the 8 shot. There is one with a pistol grip, which you may find more comfortable.  It has a short, 18.5" barrel, making it good for maneuvering inside buildings.  And a 12 guage at close range will bisect all but your stoutest students. 

I would go with a glaser round[1] for home defense - you don't want to shoot through a wall and kill a family member - but for you, I think standard buckshot would be called for.  Students are quite wily and you will almost certainly need to plug one on the other side of a wall from time to time.

Another option would be a fully automatic weapon.  That way you can just spray an entire area.  Again, you would want something compact, with a short barrel.  I'd go with a smaller calibre for better accuracy.  A SAR-21[2] would be a good candidate, but I prefer to buy American, so I'd use the Colt M4[3] It is a close quarters version of the M16.  Very reliable and uses stantard NATO rounds.  I don't think you'd regret getting one outfitted with a grenade launcher. 

 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug)
 2. http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=618 (http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=618)
 3. http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=3 (http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=3)
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Boots on March 06, 2014, 12:29:11 PM
I don't think you'd regret getting one outfitted with a grenade launcher.

hah!  Truer words may never have been spoken.  What possible device/appliance could you buy that these words would not apply to????
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Mrjason on March 07, 2014, 08:25:57 AM
I don't think you'd regret getting one outfitted with a grenade launcher.

hah!  Truer words may never have been spoken.  What possible device/appliance could you buy that these words would not apply to????

suppositories.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Boots on March 07, 2014, 12:19:33 PM
I don't think you'd regret getting one outfitted with a grenade launcher.

hah!  Truer words may never have been spoken.  What possible device/appliance could you buy that these words would not apply to????

suppositories.

that just depends on the direction/trajectory
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: nogodsforme on March 07, 2014, 03:50:13 PM
I don't think you'd regret getting one outfitted with a grenade launcher.

hah!  Truer words may never have been spoken.  What possible device/appliance could you buy that these words would not apply to????

I agree. Everything would be improved by such an adaptation.

Yoga pants, funeral plots, segways, apple pies, snowflakes, flat screen tv's, Jehovah's Witnesses, dildoes, accounting textbooks, toddler beauty contestants, rosebushes, fairy godmothers and, of course, grenade launchers should all come equipped with grenade launchers.

Life would be complete. :o
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on March 07, 2014, 04:55:31 PM
A grenade launcher equipped society is a polite society.  Also, very loud.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: Chronos on March 07, 2014, 10:41:47 PM
I need a grenade launcher on I-70.
Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: screwtape on March 11, 2014, 12:50:39 PM
Gun fail 59
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/04/1279809/-It-s-fun-to-accidentally-discharge-your-handgun-at-the-Y-M-C-A-GunFAIL-LIX


A guy was demonstrating gun safety by holding guns to his head and pulling the trigger.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/02/24/man-shoots-himself-in-the-head-while-demonstrating-gun-safety/
Predictably, one was loaded and he is dead.  Up until that point he was considered to be a “responsible gun owner”.

Also, “The girlfriend said the victim had been drinking most of the day”

Title: Re: Gun Fails
Post by: epidemic on March 12, 2014, 10:04:05 AM
Gun fail 59
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/04/1279809/-It-s-fun-to-accidentally-discharge-your-handgun-at-the-Y-M-C-A-GunFAIL-LIX


A guy was demonstrating gun safety by holding guns to his head and pulling the trigger.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/02/2