Accidental Shooting in California - Two Kids Hurt - Gun Owner Arrested

Because a hidden criminal, by your definition, is anyone.

And you're using that to preemptively remove rights.

So under the guise of public safety you'd establish a system whereby anyone's rights can be removed without a trial so long as you come up with some flimsy excuse before hand.

your point is to impunge all gun owners and you don't care how you do it.

Prove that about half of us are unfit, and I don't mean your feelings, I mean hard stats. with links.

You solicited responses while saying that you believed this.

also you only seem to have this revelation regarding gun owners.

Which would imply your world is neatly divided in at least one way: all gun owners are likely bad guys.

"Guys" are good guys UNTIL they become bad guys. See how easy that is to work out?

Fucking incredible.

...of fascist ideas are you putting out?



Someone is lawful or criminal by their behavior not according to whether they are arrested. I saw an interview with a guy that was arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced for murder. 25 years later he was released because they made a mistake. By your logic he was a hidden criminal til he was arrested then an actual criminal and then what...? A former criminal? An ex-criminal?

Why do you believe that an arrest is the difference between lawful and criminal? Are you one of those folks that believes not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth?

The presumption of innocence demands that people be considered "law abiding" until they are convicted of a crime. But we need a way to define that group who are criminal or negligent in their actions, but just haven't been caught yet. Thus, hidden criminals.

That kind of thinking has worked really well in several governmental bodies in the past.

Let me guess, people that think just like you get to decide who is "negligent in their actions", right?

We have a way to define both those individuals who are criminal and those individuals who are negligent. The way we "define" a criminal is someone who breaks a law. Generally that term is applied to those who have violated misdemeanor or felony laws. You mentioned the "presumption of innocence" and that this principle requires treating those not convicted in the same way under the law. How is it possible to treat differently those who committed crimes but "just haven't been caught"??? How can we know who has committed a crime before, and therefore without, actually convicting them?

BTW, in criminal justice the term "presumption of innocence" means, for one thing that while law enforcement and prosecutors work by evidence to establish things before and during a trial such as motive and opportunity, it is demanded of us to accord those actually charged with a crime all the rights due someone not involved.

Various organizations maintain a list (sometimes called a "blacklist") of those not to be trusted. I believe the NRA may have such a list of some public people who are pro-control. Credit bureaus maintain lists of those who can't be trusted to pay a debt. Those lists don't prevent people from picking their own church, protesting government actions, voting or being secure as described in the 4th Amendment or any other rights you can name.

This system you're thinking of where suspects have their rights impaired is just wrong. Then you think it's a good idea to add negligent folks to that list. They're "suspects", too?? Do we need to think they're criminally negligent or will plain old forgetfully negligent get them on the suspect list? Who is it we trust to maintain these lists?

What exactly will separate the nobles from the serfs?

Here ya go,



We'll get Tom Cruise right on it.

It seems to me they outnumber the true lawful gun owners.

It seems to me you wouldn't be able to figure out how to pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel and a spigot in the toe.

Are you suggesting all gun ownership should be illegal based on the behavior of the few idiots who leave guns lying around, or play with them in front of children?
What about the guy who forgets to put the parking brake on his car and it rolls over his kid? Does that make all car owners hidden criminals?

If not, then please clarify. What bans or restrictions do you call for, or support?

...sitten' by the ole pc just hittin' F5 knowin' that any second mikeb would show up answer? I know I have.

but it looks like he finally replied with nothing to say except a link to his blog, but that's OK. I think his heart is in the right place, but I don't agree with his methods.

I'm pretty sure that most folks that advocate controls of some kind on firearms are motivated for the overall good. I'm also rather sure that a small minority are motivated solely by prejudice and a jerking knee.

You made it clear in this thread that you two aren't in the same philosophical camp on gun control. I've occasionally seen some pro-gun folks lump together everyone that seems more in the control camp than the gun camp. Broad-brushing him into an ally is probably not the most honest characterization of your ideals and certainly not an accurate representation of his.

A temporary alliance with you enemy's enemy is not always the best idea.

BTW, is it cold up there today?

I love living in a place where almost every day is my favorite time of year.

Have a nice day.

Fair enough, but it won't work, never did, never will and it's antithetical to what the US is all about, including individual freedoms. That is the problem. Prohibition didn't work, the war on drugs isn't and never was working because these are attempts to contrrol how individuals conduct their lives. Very unAmerican.

So, what's the solution to the problem of thousands of unnecessary gun homicides annually? I'm not sure, but I do know what isn't, and that is trying to control gun ownership. Neither is it the new madness of ubiquitous concealed carry. Neither is it the status quo. Therein lies the dilemma, and the only viable solution must obviously be quite draconian in nature. There comes a point when people stand together as a society and weigh the pros and cons of individual rights versus societal needs. It's just growing pains. We'll get there one day, I hope. But your suggestions for gun control, well intentioned though they may be, are inherently unfair and on a practical level, unfeasible.

I think a more rational and practical approach is not licensing and restricting ownership, but governing behavior, without singling out those who do not meet arbitrary criteria.
Yes, you can own a gun for hunting, sport shooting, home defense and can take it wherever it is lawful, which obviously should be nowhere where others might, unwittingly, be endangered. Consequently, instead of having gun-free zones, we would have designated guns-allowed zones, with the former being the default.

apparently you think the world ends at the boundaries of the United States.

I'm fully aware that it has worked in other places. Some are places I have lived. The world does not end at the boundaries of the US. In many ways there is a lot more sanity beyond those boundaries. Gun control is an excellent example. Healthcare is another. The US is still in it's infancy when it comes to health, education and public safety.
Any kind of control, in a democracy, has to come with the consent of the people, as it does in most countries with sensible firearm policies. In the US, the old pioneer/libertarian way of thinking still dominates the sociopolitical process. Hell, many American consider liberal a dirty word, not to mention socialist or, God forbid, communist.
I just received a FB post from a family member who has 30+ years medical experience, claiming another family member was healed by a miracle from Jesus. Every one of the 60+ comments agreed with her. These are good people and a number of them, including her, are Dems. But if someone beats cancer in Appallachia, it's because of Jesus, not the chemo and radiation. Even the doctor said it was Jesus.
So, in a sense, I guess the world does end at the borders. Half of this country is ahead of the rest of the world and the other half is still living in the 17th century.

if you're going to argue two contradictory positions within moments of each other on the same thread, this seems like not a very useful argument to have.

Of course it works elsewhere to varying degrees. UK is the best example. It requires overwhelming support from the populace. As long as we hold on to the notion of individual liberty trumping public health and safety, it doesn't stand a chance. I support the concept of gun control, but the methods here are not working. 2A looked good on paper a couple of hundred years ago, just as the 10 commandments did back in the time of Moses. Neither makes much sense today, at least to me. But both of those "documents" make sense to the majority of Americans. Same with the death penalty. We are so far behind the rest of the world in certain ares.

The US is currently very divided on these issues, which are so basic and fundamental givens to most other countries. Try finding any other country where more than half the people support handgun proliferation, indiscriminate carry, denial of healthcare to anybody, anytime, anywhere, and support for the death penalty. Other backward thought like denying women control over their bodies is close to half the population.
We're making some progress - gay rights, Obamacare, some investment in renewable energy sources, but it doesn't look like we're ready for gun reform. It will come, there is no doubt. When is one question? But the main one is "How?" Best way to persuade others of their folly is by example. Not an easy thing to do during a craze. But, ironically, I do believe that the madness currently manifesting itself, this fad for CC, will die. Folk will tire of the nonsense and responsibility attached to carrying a loaded gun around. Most will abandon their guns to either gather dust in a closet or put them back into circulation to recoup a little money they can spend on the next fad to come along. More guns out there flooding the market will lower their value. Many will find there way into the hands of criminals, as they do already. It may take a few cycles before we all get the picture, but eventually we will.
So far, I have not seen any proposals that make any sense and the status quo doesn't either.

we can be the Czech Republic and Bulgaria of the western hemisphere. That way, we can have the best of both.

Gun homicide rates.
US = 2.98
Bulgaria = 0.37
Czech Republic = 0.17
UK = 0.03
(All per 100k)

So, compared to the United Kingdom a person is
5 times more likely to be killed by a gun in the Czech Republic
12 times more likely in Bulgaria
100 times more likely in the US

In terms of firearm ownership/possession

UK 6.7%
CR 16.3%
BU 19.4%
US 88.8%

Is the picture getting any clearer yet?
All data available at www.gunpolicy.org

If you are going to include suicides as "gun violence" then you would have to discuss rope violence in Europe, Japan, and Korea.

The percentages are guns per 100 people, not households with guns. Since Americans tend to be more materialistic, the percentage is consistent with our love affair with too big houses, TVs per room, DVD players, and junk filling up garages and public storage places.

Including all those guns needed to protect the rest of the junk we accumulate. Why do Americans commit suicide at such a higher rate than the UK? (7.55 vs 11.96 per 100,000).

National Health Service vs expensive private, US rural county health services are under funded and still more expensive than NHS.
Why does South Korea have a suicide rate higher than even Japan?

Both are very high. S. Korea puts enormous pressure on the youth to succeed, Japan too. Japan has a long history of suicide as an honorable option. Neither culture deals well with failure and dishonor. Very Darwinian in a sense.
Depression due to parental and societal pressure is usually a major factor, and I think it applies here also, along with inadequate education and access to public health.

did he or she get the chemo and radiation? If not, maybe it was Jesus, or the The Great Mystery.

Had stage 3 lung cancer

For once, I think we agree. Just had to acknowledge that.

this one just happened to allow his kids get injured with a firearm instead of a bike, pool, ATV, pitbull, ect...

I've seen a case or two of it right here in this very thread. They just can't hide it.

Finally, somebody who gets it.

Of course that's logical. Why doesn't everybody understand that? Why are you unique in holding that belief?

did some mysterious force cause it to "Go Off" ?