Gun Owners - Comments on Juvenile shot by State Senator's Gun

[RamboLiberal]

A state senator probably won't face charges in the death of a 14-year-old boy who was shot with the lawmaker's gun while caring for the senator's dogs, a prosecutor said today.

The boy was found dead Saturday morning in the woods behind his home, which is next door to the home of state Sen. Robert Regola III, R-Westmoreland. A 9 mm handgun that belonged to Regola was found near the body.

The teenager had been caring for Regola's pets while the lawmaker and his wife were away, police said. The couple was in Harrisburg so Regola could receive the Legislator of the Year Award from the Pennsylvania Sheriffs' Association, said Tom Hower, Regola's spokesman.

The state police said forensic tests should determine whether the boy shot himself on purpose, accidentally or whether he was shot in some other manner. The tests, which are expected to take about two weeks, are also needed to confirm conclusively that the boy died from a bullet that came from the senator's gun, police said at a news conference today.

The gun did not have a trigger lock, but it was not stored haphazardly or recklessly, authorities said. It was not locked away, but also "wasn't left out in an area where anyone would normally see it," Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06206/708449-100.stm

As a gun owner I think it is negligence to leave a gun even if hidden away not secured by a trigger lock or locked away if you're allowing access to the house by a juvenile. This senator is supposed to be an NRA member, hunter, ran on gun rights, etc. Be interested in comments here.

[Township75]

1. I hope he gets nailed for every law he violated in PA.

I think for someone as lowly as a state senator, it will be really tough for law enforcement to look the other way given all the media attention this will get.

[Outlier]

2. shooting

Who shot the boy? Unless the owner shot the boy he can't and shouldn't be charged with anything.

[slackmaster]

5. We don't know who shot the boy

It may have been the boy himself, or someone else.

[iverglas]

39. more fun with sig lines

(see TX RAT's post in the pit bull thread)

Who shot the boy? Unless the owner shot the boy he can't and shouldn't be charged with anything.
"Weaklings make trouble." John Arable - Charlotte's Web

Cull that herd.

Aren't children "weak" kinda by definition?



(html fixed)

[TX-RAT]

62. Your having way to much fun with this.

Going to be up in your neck of the woods next week. We arrive in Winnipeg Tuesday and hope to be on Apisko Lake by wednesday morning if the weathers good. Last chance to go drink whisky and fish with a bunch of hairy legs from West TX, you ready?

[LARED]

3. I hope the Senator gets treated like any "Joe" would

Assuming the kid shot himself accidentally, allowing a 14 year old access to a pistol is irresponsible. But not criminal.

[virginia mountainman]

10. Irresponsible??

Maybe in many cases, Not in others...Don't paint with such a broad brush. Many of us grew up with a rifle in our hands, My kids have as well.

Greenville police are searching for a fifth man who has been charged in a home invasion that authorities say was foiled by a gun-toting 13-year-old.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060713/NEWS01/607130313/1004/NEWS01

Another article about that incident.

http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=5134073&nav=menu149_1

[LARED]

12. Making a few assumptions that

the 14 teen year old accidentally shot himself and was not familiar with gun safety protocols, I would call the gun owner irresponsible for not securing a pistol in his home.

I have unsecured firearms in my home. The ammo is separated from the guns, but both are available if one looked hard enough. My children are well trained in gun safety, but if I had a neighbor that is not trained housesitting, the ammo and arms are secured.

[virginia mountainman]

20. I fully agree

I also have a couple of unsecured firearms in my home (most are behind lock and key, but they are not locked against my kids, they are locked against THEFT)

The unsecured ones are to be cleaned, or need a minor repair, they are left out (in my bedroom closet), to remind me, I tend to forget if I lock them up.

BUT...

Our carry guns, are kept in their holsters, mine hanging up in the bedroom closet with my clothes, hers in her handbag (yes, it is a bag designed for a gun) They stay put in their holsters, we do rotate magazines every 2 weeks.


Their is an Mossburg 12 gauge loaded with light shot in the closet as well, this is the house gun, the light shot will be stopped by the walls in the house. For a time when we first moved in, we had a LARGE BEAR hanging around. So I kept my M1 Garand in the coat closet by the door, with an en-bloc clip of 8 soft point rounds on the shelf beside it...JUST IN CASE it came out of the woods on my or my neighbors kids while they where playing, or waiting on the school bus, WHICH DID HAPPEN, but it scurred away when I fired a round to scare it away....I had a neighbor that fed it, caused all kinds of problems with the bears for a time.

My kids know what guns are, they know what they do, they understand what can happin if they are misshandled. Their is no mystery to them...Same as it was with me when I was growing up, the guns my father had, where just "their" like the knives in the kitchen, or a car in the driveway.

[iverglas]

42. and more sig lines

Man either accepts the idea that the Creator is the endower of rights, or he submits to the idea that the state is the endower of rights. There is no third alternative.

Sez who? Like I care ...

You either accept the idea that I am the Goddess of Beauty and Wit, or you submit to the idea that you will burn in a pit of fire for eternity.

Sez I.

... Well huh. Says Leonard E. Read, apparently. I can't link to where google found me Man either accepts the idea that the Creator is the endower, unfortunately, since such links are frowned on here.

Well, I wasn't familiar with Leonard E. Read, so I googled him.

http://209.217.49.168/vnews.php?nid=130

FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Leonard E. Read (1898 - 1983)
Founder and First President (1948 - 1983)

Although American military defeated the totalitarian states of Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II, the statist ideas that governed these (and other) countries did not die off.

In fact, as a result of New Deal programs and war-time collectivism, socialist ideas were taking root in the United States. It was Leonard Read's mission to confront this ideological invasion. Together with a few friends and kindred souls he launched the Foundation for Economic Education, on March 7, 1946, just a few months after the Japanese surrender.

Now there's a bit of intellectual honesty for you -- the "statist ideas" of Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II ... "New Deal programs and war-time collectivism" ... "socialist ideas". What's that, one of those "which one doesn't belong" IQ test questions?

Read Leonard E. Read's famous article, "I, Pencil"

Okay. ... Or, well, not. Dead link. Here we go:

http://econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Uh ... well, that was enlightening. If you're an easily-led dunce, maybe.

http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/liberal.php?id=203

Acton Institute
Religion and Liberty

Leonard E. Read (1898–1983)

“No genius is required to see clearly that an unhampered market economy best fulfills the peaceful wants and ambitions of everyone involved. Each best serves himself by serving others, producing his own specialty, trading for theirs.”

... Read was keenly aware of the religious and ethical dimensions of human liberty, and that freedom ultimately rests on Judeo-Christian religious values. It is from this source, he believed, that we derive our convictions about the meaning of life, the nature of man, the moral order, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals. The classical liberal tradition is a projection of this religious heritage. Another cornerstone of Read's thought was that the free market is a moral institution, not just an efficient means of production.

Damn I just love a "classical liberal".

Big fan of Leonard, are you? Perhaps I should ask first: heard of him, have you?

I know there are people in the US who are still sore about the New Deal. I happened to be in the visitors' gallery in the House of Representatives in DC some 20 or so years ago when a motion to allocate $25,000 to some commemmoration of FDR was being debated. And debated, and debated ... yeesh, those Republicans were just really sore, all those years later.


So I'm wondering ...

Assuming the kid shot himself accidentally, allowing a 14 year old access to a pistol is irresponsible. But not criminal.

What would the creator say?

That you're not your neighbour's kid's keeper, I guess. Oh wait ...

[slackmaster]

4. It's pretty hard to keep things from a determined 14-year-old

Regarding the comment from "authorities" about the gun not being stored "haphazardly or recklessly", that may be legally irrelevant considering that PA doesn't have a safe storage law. If the incident had happened here in California, the owner of the gun could be charged under our safe storage law. However, he might be able to successfully defend himself against charges if he had taken reasonable measures to store the weapon safely.

Law or no law, everyone is morally obligated to take reasonable precautions against having weapons fall into the wrong hands. Whether or not the owner took adequate measures is impossible to determine from the information provided here. If, hypothetically, the matter came to a civil trial it would be up to a jury to make that determination.

In any case the loss of life is regrettable.

[iverglas]

84. death creeps in

on little cat feet. And takes out the kids, I guess.

Dang, it's another Brother, can you paradigm. Thought I'd made it up, hadn't:

http://www.bigblackpig.com/lccarson/cuc.html

Comedy Under Construction:
Cheap Drills & Wing Nuts

by Linda Carson, Jim Gardner, John
McMullen & Dave Till

"Death. Death creeps in on little cat feet
and says, 'Fooled you. Bet you thought
I was fog.'"

Bet you know what I'm sayin'!

[sgxnk]

6. what laws

would those be?

prosecutor already said charges will probably not be sought. so, are you aware of any state laws broken? i'm not familiar with laws in PA


ok, im a gun owner and...

there are two issues here

1) how we think things should be
2) what the law actually says (which of course varies from state to state)

as i understand it, this kid was not the senator's son, but a neighbor kid who was housesitting. therefore, regardless of what the law says - on a MORAL basis, he should have had the gun locked up unless he knew the kid was thoroughly trained in gun safety AND he got permission from the kids parents to leave an unsecured gun in the house

as for PARENTS in their own households. i have no problem with leaving unsecured guns, assuming we are talking about kids old enough to be taught gun safety. but since the senator was allowing somebody else's kid in his house, and he was away from the house, he should have had the gun secured

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. If you are a gun owner, you need to be responsible

There is no excuse not to be. Even the NRA provides gun safety classes, starting for kids in grade school, for heaven's sake! I'm all for responsible gun ownership. When people are irresponsible with guns, it puts all gun owners in a bad light.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. It remains to be seen if there was any irresponsibility

And we should track it.

[RamboLiberal]

14. I'm not saying there is criminal liability

but I'm betting there could be civil liability. My point is as a gun owner you need to be responsible. One time I thought of leaving a teen relative stay at my home to mind my dog. And one of my thoughts if I had was that I would have to make sure if I locked up the guns so they wouldn't be accessible.

In some states the senator would be facing a possibility of criminal liability.

[iverglas]

17. res ipsa loquitur

It remains to be seen if there was any irresponsibility


Hmm. Assuming the obvious to be true:

A firearms owner left a firearm accessible to a child.
A child accessed the firearm and died from a bullet fired from it.

Hmm. That was difficult.

[Solo_in_MD]

24. I would not be so hasty, consider this one...

Someone drives away from a party after drinking
Their car goes off a bridge in a solo accident and the passenger dies
By your logic, Ted Kennedy should be in jail...

Like any lawyer, I could construct a number of scenarios that would clear the gun owner. A week or two to see how this works out won't make any real difference.

[iverglas]

26. oooh, it's diss the Kennedys time!

Someone drives away from a party after drinking
Their car goes off a bridge in a solo accident and the passenger dies
By your logic, Ted Kennedy should be in jail...

Funny, I'm not recognizing my logic there.

Like any lawyer, I could construct a number of scenarios that would clear the gun owner.

Well, lemme see whether I can.

Might the kid in our story have slipped on a banana peel and accidentally grabbed the gun and pulled the trigger? But hmm -- why would the gun have been there within his reach?

Might someone else have grabbed the kid's arm and caused the gun to aim at his head and the trigger to get pulled? But hmm -- why would the gun have been in the kid's hand?

Might it have been a dark and stormy night, and the kid was trying to shoot a squirrel but missed because he couldn't see, and shot himself in the head? But hmm -- why would he have had the gun at all?

I have no idea whether Ted Kennedy should have been jailed or not. Maybe he should have -- if a number of outstanding questions had been answered as they would have to be in order for someone to be found guilty of whatever he might have been guilty of.

What sort of questions do we need to know the answers to in this instance in order to determine that the gun owner was a piece of shit and that the kid would not have been shot dead if the gun owner had acted as decent human beings act? None that I can see.

Sadly, in this case, being a piece of shit may not be a jailable offence. Gee, maybe it would be a good idea to have a law that even people who are pieces of shit, if they have basic common sense and are not in the general habit of breaking laws (hmm, if I do this, I might get into trouble, and that would be bad for my career as a legislator), might be expected to obey.

[TomInTib]

8. Why don't they prosecute the pistol?

After all, that mean ol' thang just jumped into that dumbass kid's hand and led him out in the woods where it then pointed itself at the kid and pulled its own trigger.

Bad Gun!!
Bad, Bad Gun!!!

I truly believe that this is no more wrong than leaving a car in the garage and the keys on the kitchen counter right under the liquor cabinet.

[iverglas]

11. "Juvenile shot by State Senator's Gun"

But, but -- I thought that guns didn't shoot people, people shot people!

Of course, we all know what that means ... but I at least expect that if someone advocating firearms control had said it ... well ...

I figured out how to avoid that a while back, and I note that the article itself uses my solution:

Charges not likely in boy's death with lawmaker's gun

But I won't pretend not to know what you meant. ;)

The gun did not have a trigger lock, but it was not stored haphazardly or recklessly, authorities said. It was not locked away, but also "wasn't left out in an area where anyone would normally see it," Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said.

... Peck said gun owners in Pennsylvania, unlike those in some other states, aren't required to use trigger locks or to keep guns locked away. They can be charged with reckless endangerment or related crimes, however, if they are reckless about storing weapons, he said.

Pressed for an example, Peck said that a gun owner can legally leave a weapon on a table at home, but the same gun owner might be judged reckless if he did that with young children nearby.

"That element (of recklessness) doesn't jump out at you in this particular case," Peck said.

And yet, gee, the kid still got the gun and, apparently, was killed with it.

Kids don't ever look around houses whose owners are away when they're allowed access to the houses. And kids who find guns when they do that never play with them. And kids also never break into houses whose owners are away, and certainly never with the intention of finding fun things like guns to play with.

Noooo. None of those risks are foreseeable. But gee, let's dance on the head of a pin and see whether we can figure out whether leaving guns where such a kid could easily access them is simple negligence or gross negligence or criminal negligence, or recklessness or mere carelessness ...

Or we could just make laws requiring firearms owners to store their firearms securely, to cover every situation in which it is foreseeable that a kid might get hold of them -- which is pretty much every situation that we could envision, kids being kids. Kids often gain access to houses even if they aren't "allowed" access, after all, and I can't think of those kids dying preventable deaths wouldn't be a good thing too.

Maybe this lawmaker might like to sponsor such a law, in an attempt to spare other people the suffering that has happened to him (even though he presumably meant to comply with what law there was). Not to mention the suffering of the kid and his parents.

I do hope a non-gun owner will be forgiven for piping up so brazenly.

[Outlier]

13. If we do everything you say

a gun will be completely useless to provide personal protection. I blame the kids parents for not teaching him how to safely aim and fire a gun.

I'm surprised by the number of pro gun responses. I guess I shouldn't be with all the talk of "revolution" in the other threads.

[iverglas]

16. a standing ovation for you

I blame the kids parents for not teaching him how to safely aim and fire a gun.

Good for you!

Me, I blame George W. Bush for much that's evil in the world.

Now ... if only we could have thought of some way of stopping W. BEFORE a few thousand people were dead ... wouldn't that have been luvverly?

Not by you, I guess. As long as there's someone to blame when something bad happens, why would we want to try to stop bad things from happening????

No reason at all. No reason at all to try to stop thousands of Iraqi children from being killed by W.'s bombs and bullets. No reason at all to try to stop kids in the USofA from dying if they play with guns. Nope. We've got the president and the parents to blame. We're all right, Jack.


I'm just curious ...

If we do everything you say a gun will be completely useless to provide personal protection.

How, exactly, was this particular firearm being USEFUL for "personal protection", or anything else for that matter?

Other than for making a kid dead, that is.

[Outlier]

18. If its loaded

its ready to be fired, and can offer the person holding it protection. If it's unloaded it's more or less a club.

[iverglas]

21. which person was that?

If its loaded its ready to be fired, and can offer the person holding it protection.

Perhaps you read the story reported in the opening post. I dunno.

In case you didn't, or you've forgotten: the firearm in question was left in a vacant house by someone who was away from home. For several days.

Which person was holding it?

The man with the giraffe who drives the Volkswagen?

[Outlier]

51. If a gun

is for protection it should be loaded. Everytime you load unload load unload. you run the risk of having not the way you want it when you need it, loaded. The owner has every right to keep it the way he wants it. Nothing you say will change my mind, and I have a feeling I'm not changing yours. Agree to disagree.

My guns are loaded, always.

[slackmaster]

28. We don't have enough information to determine negligent storage

The fact that the child was shot is NOT sufficient data to make that determination.

But gee, let's dance on the head of a pin and see whether we can figure out whether leaving guns where such a kid could easily access them is simple negligence or gross negligence or criminal negligence, or recklessness or mere carelessness ...

We have no information at all about what level of effort was required for the kid to get the gun.

ETA at age 14 I was already adept at defeating many types of locks.

[iverglas]

30. really?

ETA at age 14 I was already adept at defeating many types of locks.

Congratulations! But no cigar:

The gun did not have a trigger lock, but it was not stored haphazardly or recklessly, authorities said. It was not locked away, but also "wasn't left out in an area where anyone would normally see it," Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said.

That does seem like a fair bit of information to me.

No trigger lock, "not locked away". How plain can that be? "Not locked away". As compared to, oh, "locked away". Kind of a binary choice, no?

Not "left out in an area where anyone would normally see it" would cover ... oh, let's see now. Bedside table drawers. Shoeboxes on closet shelves. Generally speaking, places that respectful 14-yr-olds should not be rifling around in (if you'll excuse the phraseology) -- and excellent candidates for places for a 14-yr-old with a hankering for a gun to be very much expected to be rifling around in.

How would the homeowner know that the 14-yr-old in question had a hankering for a gun?

Why shuck my corn -- the homeowner wouldn't know that.

But hmm. How would the homeowner know that the 14-yr-old in question did NOT have a hankering for a gun?

Why shuck a whole bushel of my corn -- the homeowner wouldn't know that either.

So hmm. I wonder what the decent, reasonable person would have done ...

[slackmaster]

41. The child (presumably) went looking in places where a person

Would not normally look.

That could mean just about anything.

[iverglas]

43. yup

The child (presumably) went looking in places where a person
Would not normally look.
That could mean just about anything.

But what it would have a hard time meaning is that it is not foreseeable by a firearms owner -- one with four kids under 18, no less -- that a 14-year-old boy given the keys to the house would look there.

It seems, though, that we need to wait and see whether it was actually the 14-yr-old neighbour or the 16-yr-old Robert Regola IV who did the gun-getting.

[slackmaster]

44. Yes, and negligence will be up to a court to decide

Not up to you or me.

It seems, though, that we need to wait and see whether it was actually the 14-yr-old neighbour or the 16-yr-old Robert Regola IV who did the gun-getting.

And who the shooting.

[iverglas]

47. oh gosh

Yes, and negligence will be up to a court to decide
Not up to you or me.

And it will be up to the court of human history to decide whether George W. Bush is a war criminal, so we should all just shut up about the atrocities being committed in Iraq.

Good grief. Is anything discussed on the internet "up to you or me" to decide?

Have I offered up an opinion with nothing to back it up?

If you really want me to go fetch some studies of the differences between adolescent brains and adult brains, and various and assorted other arguably relevant facts relating to child/adolescent development and the habits and lifestyles of children and adolescents, I can do it. Or we can just take that kind of thing as read, given as how we really do all know that children and adolescents are not miniature adults -- and are not ordinarily treated as such by our societies.

It is my opinion that anyone who leaves any firearm anywhere that it is foreseeably accessible to any child or adolescent without adult supervision is negligent. How that negligence is characterized may depend on circumstances.

[slackmaster]

48. Mighty verbose way of saying you and I disagree

It is my opinion that anyone who leaves any firearm anywhere that it is foreseeably accessible to any child or adolescent without adult supervision is negligent....

As someone with actual parental experience, I can say it is foreseeable that a teenage boy who has made up his mind to do something stupid will go to great lengths to do so. You know that I keep my guns in a sturdy and expensive safe. But I know that if I go away for a weekend there is a possibility that someone could defeat that safe with tools that I keep in my garage. That is a foreseeable risk that I can cover only by insuring my collection against theft and myself against liability in case that foreseeable break-in results in an injury or death.

...How that negligence is characterized may depend on circumstances.

Circumstances, like exactly how the gun was stored, which we don't know. Whether or not the owner took precautions that a resonable person would consider reasonable may end up getting decided by a jury.

[Irreverend IX]

32. Sometimes you've gotta let Darwin have his way.

The news story said that the gun was not locked up but not sitting out in the open -- I'm envisioning it being in a drawer or cabinet or something. A 14-year-old is way more than old enough to know that you shouldn't go rummaging through someone's possessions without permission in the first place. Some people seem to think that everything bad that happens to someone is someone else's fault, but sometimes people get killed and injured simply because they are morons. In a home with multiple guns, most should be behind lock and key but it's perfectly reasonable for a homeowner to want one or two close at hand in case of an emergency, particularly in a situation like another poster mentioned, where wild animals frequently prowl the area around the house.

Your argument gets really ludicrous when you say that homeowners are responsible for the lives of kids who break into their homes. If a kid breaks into a house, goes through the owner's possessions, finds a gun and proceeds to shoot himself with it, it's entirely his fault. Breaking and entering is a crime, and anyone dumb enough to do it, regardless of their age, is taking their life into their hands. Some people have heavy power tools that could kill a kid who breaks in and is dumb enough to try to use them. Others have big, protective dogs that could do the same. If a kid decides to take an illicit dip in a backyard swimming pool while the owner's away, he could quite possibly drown. It's ludicrous to say that homeowners are responsible for mishaps that befall people who enter their property without authorization; otherwise people will have to keep every electrical appliance and sharp object in their homes under lock and key.

[iverglas]

33. so I guess I'll go home and puke now

I know that there are people in the world who think things like that, but it's just damned annoying when they say them out loud in places where I can hardly miss them. Maybe you could use some kind of warning label:
Do Not Read If Your Stomach Is Easily Turned


If a kid decides to take an illicit dip in a backyard swimming pool while the owner's away, he could quite possibly drown. It's ludicrous to say that homeowners are responsible for mishaps that befall people who enter their property without authorization; otherwise people will have to keep every electrical appliance and sharp object in their homes under lock and key.

Goddamn, eh? Next thing you know, people will be having to fence their backyard swimming pools.

Oh wait ...

Tyranny must surely have come to the neighbourhood.

[Irreverend IX]

34. Of course people should fence their pools.

And house doors should be locked, and guns shouldn't be left lying in plain sight. A person who owns a potentially hazardous piece of property should take reasonable measures to restrict access to it. But in your previous post, you said guns should be locked up in case of their use by someone who _breaks in_. When a kid or whoever willfully circumvents the measures taken to restrict access to something, they're taking full responsibility for their actions. And when I say "reasonable measures" I mean "reasonable." A fence around a pool communicates that it's private property not to be used without the oversight of the owner, but it can be climbed easily enough. Would you demand that every pool be covered with a lockable steel safety plate when the owner isn't home to watch over it? That would keep all but the most brazen and determined from using the pool illegitimately, but it would also force the owner to go through the ordeal of removing the cover whenever they wanted to take a dip. A good analogy can be drawn between this and a demand for homeowners to lock up every gun they own, since locking up a home defense gun will keep it from the hands of "casual" housebreakers but make it prohibitively difficult to access the weapon during emergencies.

[slackmaster]

45. Kids still drown in their neighbors' swimming pools

In spite of all the fences.

Kids can climb over fences. They can also go rummaging through other peoples' belongings and find things they shouldn't find. Sometimes those things are deadly, like guns or rat poison or prescription drugs.

[iverglas]

49. so?

Kids still drown in their neighbors' swimming pools
In spite of all the fences.
Kids can climb over fences.

Laws commonly prescribe what a society has decided are the reasonable precautions that the owner of an attractive nuisance must take -- to guard against reasonably foreseeable harms.

Here's what Toronto says about swimming pools:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_447.pdf
"Swimming pool enclosures"

Far too detailed to excerpt all the relevant bits here. Rules about doors in buildings that form part of an enclosure and height of windows in the walls of such buildings, height of fences (single-family residential pool: 1.2 metres = 4 feet), kinds of locks on gates -- a little:

(1) A swimming pool enclosure, including any gate forming part of the enclosure, shall:
(a) Be no closer than 1.2 metres horizontally to the water's edge in the pool;
(b) Be no closer than one metre to any external condition that may facilitate climbing the outside of the enclosure unless the height of the enclosure is at least 1.8 metres for a distance of at least one metre on each side of the condition;
(c) Have no element or attachment between 100 millimetres and 1.2 metres above grade that may facilitate climbing the outside of the enclosure;
and
(d) Have a facing material installed on the outside of the enclosure which extends from no more than 50 millimetres above grade to the required minimum height of the enclosure <i.e. no chain link fences>, but, if a hard surface such as concrete, asphalt, paving stones or patio slabs extends for a distance of 500 millimetres on each side of a gate, the clearance under the gate may be no more than 100 millimetres.

... (3.1) Every owner of a swimming pool shall be responsible to take all steps necessary to control any access point to the swimming pool area.

The 4-foot not-easily-scaled fences and locked gates would, one might think, keep out young children rather effectively. Young children are of course at much greater risk of drowning than older children and adolescents. So it looks like the rules comprise reasonable precautions to guard against reasonably foreseeable harms.

Now, how could putting a handgun in a shoebox on a closet shelf, just as a f'r instance, be called a reasonable precaution to guard against a reasonably foreseeable harm?

If swimming pool owners have to go to those lengths to guard against the harm is foreseeable if children trespass on their property and gain access to their swimming pool without permission or supervision, why should firearms owners be given a get out of jail free card if they do nothing to secure their firearms from marauding children?

[slackmaster]

50. Details always matter

Now, how could putting a handgun in a shoebox on a closet shelf, just as a f'r instance, be called a reasonable precaution to guard against a reasonably foreseeable harm?

You haven't provided enough information to make that determination.

- Is the gun assembled or disassembled? How many pieces? Are they in separate bags? Are tools required for assembly? What kind of tools? Are the necessary tools kept nearby? (Aside, I have a handgun in pieces stored in plastic bags in a shoe box on my workbench in my garage. It would take a great deal of skill and considerable time to get it ready to fire.)

- Is the gun clean and lubricated and ready to load and fire, or is it packed in grease for long-term storage?

- Is the gun loaded? If not, is there ammunition for it in the house? If so, where and how is it stored?

- About that closet shelf: Is it reachable from the floor by a person of normal stature? Is it above or below eye level? Would someone need a stool or ladder to see and/or reach an object on the shelf? What else is stored on the shelf? Is the box behind things, or is in plain sight?

...why should firearms owners be given a get out of jail free card if they do nothing to secure their firearms from marauding children?

We don't have enough information in the case under discussion to make a determination that the gun owner did nothing to secure the weapon.

Shoot, maybe I chose the wrong profession.

[iverglas]

52. and you're pretending

that we're not actually talking about a specific case here.

My "shoebox on a closet shelf" may not be a strictly accurate representation of how the firearm in question in this specific case was stored, but then it wasn't meant to be. It is a proxy for what was clearly stated by the authorities, as quoted in the opening post:

The gun did not have a trigger lock, but it was not stored haphazardly or recklessly, authorities said. It was not locked away, but also "wasn't left out in an area where anyone would normally see it," Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said.

Do we have ANY reason to think that the firearm IN THIS CASE was disassembled? Packed in grease? Stored away from ammunition, which ammunition itself was stored somewhat more securely than the firearm was?

About that closet shelf: Is it reachable from the floor by a person of normal stature? Is it above or below eye level? Would someone need a stool or ladder to see and/or reach an object on the shelf? What else is stored on the shelf? Is the box behind things, or is in plain sight?

Is there a closet shelf known to man or woman that yer average 14-year-old boy would not
(a) expect to find if he opened a closet door?
(b) be able to reach probably without any height aide, but be able to reach handily by grabbing a chair that he would easily find in a nearby room?
(c) look on, if he were on the prowl for something interesting, or specifically looking for firearms?

Has the fact that something is behind something else ever been sufficient to qualify it as securely stored?

If you wanted to be reasonably sure that a burglar did not find your $40,000 Rolex, would you put it in a box behind some pillow cases on your closet shelf?

Interesting question, eh? If somebody wants to make sure that something is not readily findable by an unauthorized third party in his/her own interests, e.g. to avoid a large property loss, s/he is usually going to go to some effort to secure it. Where do we imagine that the piece of right-wing shit who owned this particular firearm stored his cash and valuables? In a shoebox on a closet shelf ... or in his bedside table, or under the mattress, or in the fridge, or in his desk drawer? I kinda doubt it.


So once again, now:

We don't have enough information in the case under discussion to make a determination that the gun owner did nothing to secure the weapon.

-- did you really not read what was reproduced in the opening post?

Or are you just using a different dictionary from the one I'm thinking of when you type the word "secure"?

[slackmaster]

54. Gee, you think so?

My "shoebox on a closet shelf" may not be a strictly accurate representation of how the firearm in question in this specific case was stored...

That sums up my opinion of your post nicely.

iverglas editorialized:

The gun did not have a trigger lock, but it was not stored haphazardly or recklessly, authorities said. It was not locked away, but also "wasn't left out in an area where anyone would normally see it," Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said.

But all you have to do is change the added emphasis to make it appear that the DA was at least leaning toward not saying the gun was stored in a negligent manner:

The gun did not have a trigger lock, but it was not stored haphazardly or recklessly, authorities said. It was not locked away, but also "wasn't left out in an area where anyone would normally see it," Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said.

iverglas opined:

there a closet shelf known to man or woman that yer average 14-year-old boy would not
(a) expect to find if he opened a closet door?
(b) be able to reach probably without any height aide, but be able to reach handily by grabbing a chair that he would easily find in a nearby room?
(c) look on, if he were on the prowl for something interesting, or specifically looking for firearms?

You are forgetting the discussion is hypothetical. For all we know, the gun may have been stored in the attic. But if keeping it in the closet suits you, that's fine with me. I prefer to wait for all the facts to come to light before I pass judgement on another person's actions.

[iverglas]

55. and you're pretending

But all you have to do is change the added emphasis to make it appear that the DA was at least leaning toward not saying the gun was stored in a negligent manner: ...

... that "negligent" as it may be relevant in Pennsylvania criminal law has anything to do with what I'm saying.

If Pennsylvania law does not make it a crime to kill someone, then someone who killed someone else would not have committed a crime. Tautology, anyone?

You are forgetting the discussion is hypothetical. For all we know, the gun may have been stored in the attic.

Alrighty then. And is there an attic known to humanity that, if it is not securely locked, is inaccessible to your average 14-year-old-boy on the prowl for interesting shit in someone else's house generally, or for firearms (that he undoubtedly knew were there somewhere, in this case -- the male head of household was a bigtime shooter of guns and shooter off of his mouth on the subject of guns) specifically?

(Note that we still do not know that it was the neighbour kid who gained access to the firearm on his own; it may have been the household kid -- and all the same comments apply in that case.)

And if the firearm had been in a securely locked attic, do you imagine that the prosecutor would have said It was not locked away?

[slackmaster]

56. "may be relevant"???

Did you mean to say "irrelevant"?

It is irrelevant in criminal law because PA does not have a self-storage law, but it's certainly not completely irrelevant. As a trial lawyer defending the gun owner against a hypothetical civil suit, I'd certainly try to quote the DA's statement and get some perceived experts to testify that the gun was stored in a reasonable manner.

And I'd do my best to keep knee-jerk haters of guns and gun owners off the jury.

[iverglas]

58. what?

"may be relevant"???
Did you mean to say "irrelevant"?

You had said:

But all you have to do is change the added emphasis to make it appear that the DA was at least leaning toward not saying the gun was stored in a negligent manner: ...

I responded:

and you're pretending
... that "negligent" as it may be relevant in Pennsylvania criminal law has anything to do with what I'm saying.

You're the one who seemed to be saying that "negligence" was relevant in Pennsylvania criminal law, not moi.

I'm talking about what people SHOULD DO, and what people SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO DO, and what people SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO. Not about what Pennsylvania law at present may or may not require them to do.

It is irrelevant in criminal law because PA does not have a self-storage law, but it's certainly not completely irrelevant.

Well if it's irrelevant in Pennsylvania criminal law, then I would think that Pennsylvania prosecutors should keep their traps shut about it. If negligence is only relevant in civil actions in that state, prosecutors have nothing to say about it and anything they did say about it would really look like an improper attempt to influence a civil court.

Oh, yes -- exactly:

As a trial lawyer defending the gun owner against a hypothetical civil suit, I'd certainly try to quote the DA's statement ...

And as the plaintiff's lawyer, I'd succeed in having that statement ruled inadmissible because it is of the utmost irrelevance. But that doesn't mean that the jury pool would not have read it in the papers.

... and get some perceived experts to testify that the gun was stored in a reasonable manner.

Good luck. The experts in child psychology and adolescent behaviour would all be lined up on the plaintiff's side, I'm quite sure. For more on what's "reasonable", google negligence "attractive nuisance".

I have never been talking about civil actions, because they don't especially interest me in this context. We don't generally regard the possibility of a civil claim as being a sufficient deterrent -- or a civil award of damages as being sufficient retribution -- for wilful actions that place other people at grave risk. I cite the Criminal Code of Canada provision against leaving holes in the ice unguarded. ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

149. Most trigger locks could easily be removed by a 14 year old.

So if the gun had been hidden with one of the more common trigger locks this child wouldn't have been any safer. A gun safe is likely the only thing that could have stopped his acquisition of the firearm.

David

[benEzra]

15. We store our guns in a safe when we're not home...

unloaded, with ammunition stored elsewhere. When we're gone for an extended absence, I'll often remove a critical and not easily replaceable part (bolt, trigger group, whatever) for guns we leave behind in the safe, and store it offsite. The handguns and/or a carbine generally go with us, but if not then they will be stored securely and unloaded. When my son had his most recent open-heart surgery and we were gone for several weeks, the guns went to a friend's gun safe for secure storage, instead of leaving them in the safe in the unoccupied house.

When we're home, one carbine in the safe (mini-14 or SAR-1) will generally be magazine loaded, chamber empty. The handguns are loaded, but not accessible to our children.

If I gave a teenager access to the house to take care of our pets while we're gone, the guns would DARN sure be in the safe, unloaded, and probably with critical parts missing.

[iverglas]

19. and

If I gave a teenager access to the house to take care of our pets while we're gone, the guns would DARN sure be in the safe, unloaded, and probably with critical parts missing.

I imagine you would take pains to impress upon the teenager what the consequences would be of invading your privacy by mucking about in your stuff, without specifically warning about firearms in such a way as to draw his/her attention to their presence and prompt the rebellious teenager reflex. ("Attractive nuisance", those things.)

Everything you do is of course the minimum that should be expected of EVERY firearms owner.

I don't drive my car without brakes and brake lights -- and I wouldn't leave it up to the conscience or bank balance of any other driver when it came to whether s/he drove without brakes and brake lights.

Driving is a choice, owning firearms is a choice.

If someone cannot or will not voluntarily do either one "responsibly" and other people will be at risk if they do it anyway, then that's where the law steps in and tells them they do it the right way or they don't do it at all. And never mind the bollocks about how they only drive really slow and are really good at gearing down, or they always lock their doors, or about how they can't afford a brake job, or a gun safe.

If you think it is so important to do all these things, and you go to considerable effort to do them, you obviously perceive a risk of something seriously bad happening if they are not done. Isn't that exactly where the law is supposed to step in to require that they do get done by everybody?

[benEzra]

22. Were it not for the gun-ban lobby's oft-stated intent

to take things further than our personal system, I'd probably be OK with such legislation. The problem is, our system isn't good enough for the Bradyites, since some of our icky guns are actually loaded while we're home, are sometimes kept on our person or within reach, and of course they're guns they want to ban and confiscate anyway ("weapons of mass destruction" and all that).

For an example of where the Bradyites wish to take U.S. gun-storage and possession laws, look no further than Washington, D.C.--where it is a crime to have an assembled gun at any time, in your own home, even when you're home. No thanks.

FWIW, had this incident occurred in Florida, I believe the senator would be chargeable with a felony, as I read the statute. I don't know what the law is in Pennsylvania.

[iverglas]

23. ah, the slippery slope

Such an excellent argument against good policy.

Not.

[benEzra]

25. What would lead you to believe that were that authority granted,

that it would not be used in the way I describe?

This is a good example of why the gun prohibitionists are their own worst enemy. Of COURSE I'm going to oppose "safety standards" for firearms, when a proposed example of such a standard is a prohibition on rifle stocks with handgrips that stick out. Of COURSE I'm going to oppose granting Congress a blank check to set storage requirements (beyond simply keeping them out of the hands of unsupervised children and unauthorized adults), since the primary voices behind such requirements have made it very clear what they intend such requirements to be.

Out of curiosity, if you had your druthers, what storage requirements would you set upon me that are different from our system now?

I have no problem with the Florida law that makes it a felony to leave your gun unsecured so that it is obtained by a minor. I DO have a problem with any law that would specify exactly how my guns have to be stored at all times.

[iverglas]

27. oh, just a little common sense, I guess

I just can't think of any reason that a jurisdiction in which the electors and their representatives don't want to ban the possession fo firearms would, well, ban the possession of firearms.

I mean, that's the actual point of the law in DC, isn't it? The DC law didn't actually result from some slide down a slippery slope from safe/secure storage laws, I don't think.

Why, just look at Canada. Safe/secure storage regulations apply to the many, many firearms that many, many people are in lawful possession of. Yes indeed -- in the case of handguns in particular, the appalling failure of far too many of those people to obey the rules has resulted in calls for a prohibition on possession. Simple: if enough of them can't play nice with their toys, nobody gets to have the toys. But that's a completely different slope from the one you're afraid of slipping down.

The mere fact that something is proposed by someone you don't like doesn't actually make it a slide down any slippery slope, you know. When Republican state governments proposed significantly lowered highway speed limits some years back, did you piss and moan about how this was going to lead inevitably to a ban on driving? Would the fact that some group seeking to abolish private motor vehicles advocated lower speed limits to save on gas consumption make lowering speed limits a really bad idea and make you fear for your freedom to drive?

Like I said: yours is a pure slippery slope argument, and as such is best just waved off.


Out of curiosity, if you had your druthers, what storage requirements would you set upon me that are different from our system now?

I'd bet quite a bit that I have reproduced current Canadian requirements a number of times with general approval, along with comments about weaknesses I see in them.

I guess the big lacuna would be that, as I have understood it, unsafe/insecure storage is only an offence in California IF some harm results, in particular circumstances. Hardly strikes me as the best deterrent.

... Here we go (with emphasis added)

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/tips.htm

Summary of Safe Storage Laws Regarding Children

You may be guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony if you keep a loaded firearm within any premises that are under your custody or control and a child under 18 years of age obtains and uses it, resulting in injury or death, or carries it to a public place, unless you stored the firearm in a locked container or locked the firearm with a locking device to temporarily keep it from functioning.

(Er ... how would a locking device keep a kid from carrying a firearm to a public place ... and perhaps using it to facilitate a crime, and perhaps even getting shot by one of those good guys in the process?)

Given the number of moronic comments one sees at DU alone on a regular basis about how someone's kids are "trained" not to touch the guns -- and it is therefore unnecessary to secure them -- that really just doesn't strike me as an effective way of keeping harm out of kids' way.

[RamboLiberal]

29. Senator's kid returned home Friday night - just another tidbit

http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_206090207.html

<snip>

Regola's 16-year-old son returned home Friday night, but it is unknown whether the teens saw each other.

State police say that forensic tests will take about two weeks to determine whether the boy committed suicide, accidentally shot himself or was shot some other way.

Police say that no suicide note was found at the scene.

[iverglas]

31. well smack me if I spoke too soon (post edited)

Just think -- the 14-yr-old might have been shot by the 16-yr-old.

Now, I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference, in terms of the piece of shit who allowed either one of them to have access to a handgun ...

(Normally, I'd allow for someone who allowed a kid to have access to a handgun being just a moron, but gimme a break; this guy was an elected politician, right?)


edited 'cause I gotta add:

Not just any elected politician.

http://www2.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/memberinfo/senate_bio.cfm?districtnumber=39

A Republican, quelle surprise. And:

member Police Rod and Gun Club;
National Rifle Association;

Hmm. The National Rifle Association. I seem to recall hearing tell of that. Doesn't it teach wonderful gun safety courses or something?

So does he get drummed out now? Or do they have to pry his gun from the kid's cold dead hands first?

http://www.gatewaynewspapers.com/norwinstar/news/36306?printable=story

Family values key to Regola campaign
Wednesday, October 6, 2004

Regola says he believes in strong, conservative family values. He has been married to his wife, Janette, for 17 years and they have three children, Bobby, 14; John Ross, 10; and Marlena, 8.

... He also is a pro-life candidate, a NRA enthusiast and he supports the proposed Pennsylvania Defense of Marriage Act, which would ban gay marriages.

... Regola believes these values are what many in the area are looking for. In fact, one of his campaign slogans is "Representing Our Values."

... He has received endorsements from U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, the Pennsylvania Pro-life Federation, Pennsylvanians for Efficient Government and various other pro-life and sportsmen groups.

Calling Kukovich one of the most liberal of liberal politicians, Regola says the differences between him and Kukovich are like night and day.

Oh look, I was right. A piece of shit.

I'll have to check my Family Values handbook and see which page "leave handguns accessible to kids" is on.

Hahahahahah:

http://www.senatorregola.com/Publications.html
"Personal Firearms Inventory Booklet"

Oh look ... there's one missing ... wonder whose cold dead hand we'll have to pry it from ...

[slackmaster]

46. Morons and elected politicians

Are by no means mutually exclusive categories.

[T Town Jake]

35. One of the social costs of freedom...

...amounts to 50,000 dead a year in the U.S. of A., thanks to the internal combustion engine.

Imagine: the equivalent of a mini-Vietnam War, in terms of fatalities, each and every year (American Vietnam War deaths accrued over twelve years) since about the time the Interstate Highway System hit its stride.

Of those 50,000 per annum deaths a figure of about 14,000 lurks: those are the automobile fatalities that ensue, partly or directly, as a result of alcohol intoxication on the part of one or more of the operators of said vehicles.

We could ban left turns - and then restrict the age at which motor vehicle licenses could be issued to those between the ages of 25 and 70. Many lives would be saved.

We could ban alcohol consumption of any sort in these United States*.

Further, we could require automakers to reconfigure every new Chevy or Ford or Chrysler that hits the streets here with an engine governor that does not allow the engine to propel the vehicle beyond 37 miles per hour**. And we could lower the speed limit accordingly.

Why don't we do these things, collectively, as a society?

Because we have determined that the equivalent of a Vietnam War toll, in terms of people dead, each and every year on the nation's highways and byways is preferable to the manifold and numerous restrictions on a lot of things - and their economic, social, and societal costs - that it would be necessary to impose to make that yearly body count go away.

It's not as if anyone likes it, or sits around rubbing their hands with glee as the grim numbers pile up; but, nevertheless, it stands as a statical reality.

In the United States the social cost of our citizens being allowed relatively open and free access to firearms possession in most parts of the country is a social cost that we, as a collective society, have decided that we're willing bear.

Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia, there have been questions about how far this or that aspect of national sovereignty goes. But different cultures and societies tolerate certain things on a sliding scale that varies from the chopping off of hands in Saudi Arabia for theft to the open smoking of reefers in Amsterdam.

This is called The World, life, and it's diversity.

As far as it goes - and often it doesn't go that far - the ability of folks to decide for themselves what kind of policies they want as regards cars, or thieves, or reefers, or guns is best left to those folks, and in those locales. Indeed, just recently in the North American continent I inhabit a certain country with a long parliamentary tradition handed down from England debated whether to allow a certain religious minority to abandon the common law of Western Civilization and permit Sharia "law" to call the score in "domestic" disputes: this would have meant that, in practice, a Muslim woman in Vancouver could have been stoned to death for adultery because her husband caught her casting a gaze that lingered a bit too long over the guy at the next table who was wolfing down donut holes.

I find the government of such a country that even debates such things to be repulsive - but, then, it's not my problem since I don't get to vote for the people who decide such things in that nation.

The bottom line is that my government - the one I vote for here at the local level - could care less what they're doing elsewhere when it comes to cars or guns or anything else. We're going to have CCW and expansive gun rights here regardless of Democratic/Republican divides no matter what - 95% of the folks where I'm at support such rights. And always will.

I may still think that the notion that Muslim women living in Western countries are not entitled to the same rights as native-born women in those same societies is absurd, subtly racist, and deeply unjust; but that's not my problem. In the United States of America, women of whatever religious faith (or none, for that matter) are entitled to the same rights as every other citizen.

And that's where I live and vote - writ large and otherwise.

I'd suggest to those of you who don't cotton to how things are progressing along those lines to go and vote to your liking for those who feel to the contrary. And to those who are not able to actually vote in a U.S. American election: just get over how we do things down here, and tend to your own society. It's really, at the end of the day, none of your business.

*oops - we tried that once with the 18th Amendment. And got Al Capone as a hero for the era.

**lots of "social arts" B.A.'s hereabouts, I'm sure, but very few serious University graduates, as in those who know anything in the hard sciences about things like Calculus, Physics etc.
I happen too.

[iverglas]

37. ah, analogies

http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr2005/components/vehicledeaths.html

Deaths in the US per 100,000 miles driven, 2005: 1.5

Will I drive 100,000 miles in my lifetime -- counting, of course, miles "driven" as a passenger in a car or bus or what have you?<*> Yeah, I'd say so. These days I drive about 2,000 miles a year.

<*> I infer that each mile driven may involve more than one person. I'd like to see a deaths per person-mile figure. It would obviously be lower than the 1.5 figure.

How would we compare this death rate to the rate of death by firearm? Y'know what? I have no clue. Or more to the point: we couldn't. So we pretty obviously couldn't draw any conclusions from such an impossible comparison. So I wonder why anyone would propose it.

And that's without even mentioning the difficulty of comparing
(a) harm resulting from what, in many instances at present, is the unavoidable individual use of something
to
(b) harm resulting from what, in virtually all instances at present, is the 100% avoidable individual use of something.

Nice basket of fruit, anyone?

Someone with a real university degree should be able to give us a dissertation on the differences between apples and oranges, I'd think. Even if s/he can't really spell too good when doing it.

If I knew what "social arts" were, I might feel insulted. Do they give degrees in etiquette and shmoozing at US universities? Y'know, I almost wouldn't be surprised if they did.

[T Town Jake]

53. Verily, I am misunderstood...

(n/t)

[iverglas]

38. and in other matters

Indeed, just recently in the North American continent I inhabit a certain country with a long parliamentary tradition handed down from England debated whether to allow a certain religious minority to abandon the common law of Western Civilization and permit Sharia "law" to call the score in "domestic" disputes: this would have meant that, in practice, a Muslim woman in Vancouver could have been stoned to death for adultery because her husband caught her casting a gaze that lingered a bit too long over the guy at the next table who was wolfing down donut holes.

This is a filthy lie.

It reflects nothing but bigotry toward both the group whose proposals you characterize so completely falsely and bigotry toward the group that engaged in a thorough (if, on some sides, bigoted) examination of the proposals.

Oh, hell. My apologies. Maybe you don't actually know that the statement you have made is so false that it has stunk up the world for miles around. The statement you have made could actually just reflect your complete ignorance of the truth. In which case it wouldn't really be a filthy lie, would it?

You could always tell us which it is. Are you lying (and if so, why??), or are you ignorant (and if so, why??)?

And it's doughnut, for pity's sake.

[T Town Jake]

57. Ah, a "filthy" lie, as opposed to a clean one, I suppose?

Sorry 'bout that, but my understanding of the controversy in question is precisely as I stated it. My analogy is, perhaps, tinged with hyperbole in the particular example I offered, but that comes with the territory - so to speak - when one is commenting on the habits, practices, and customs of a country and a culture thousands of miles away in which one does not live.

Hmmmmm....I'd think about that a bit, were I you, by the by.

As for the laughable charge of "bigotry" I say: surely you jest. Your intellectual quiver cannot be so devoid of content that you must resort to the equivalent of that age-old discredited practice of asking me if I've quit beating my wife, please respond YES or NO, and expect any kind of thoughtful repartee ("Are you lying...or are you ignorant?"). A simple recitation of the facts as you understand them would be much more effective, methinks. That's the second piece of free advice & wisdom I've dispensed in this post alone, so I must close since my daily limit along those lines has been reached.

But one other thing, real quick: I always thought it was "donut" cause that's how they spell it. Guess I was wrong.

[iverglas]

60. ah, so it was "ignorant"

Now, when the ignorant have their errors pointed out to them, and yet do not investigate and do not retract, what would they be doing?

A simple recitation of the facts as you understand them would be much more effective, methinks.

Er ... and I should waste my time (and all that bandwidth) posting the true facts about a situation about which you have posted a disgusting falsehood ... why?

Hmm. Maybe so that anyone really really gullible (or prejudiced) in the neighbourhood doesn't think that anything you said was actually the truth. Sometimes that is wise, indeed. And it even has a secondary beneficial effect: not only showing such people that what was said was not true and is so easily proved false, but also prompting them to wonder why anyone would have made the false statements in the first place!

T Town Jake:

Indeed, just recently in the North American continent I inhabit a certain country with a long parliamentary tradition handed down from England debated whether to allow a certain religious minority to abandon the common law of Western Civilization and permit Sharia "law" to call the score in "domestic" disputes: this would have meant that, in practice, a Muslim woman in Vancouver could have been stoned to death for adultery because her husband caught her casting a gaze that lingered a bit too long over the guy at the next table who was wolfing down donut holes.

Truth (with a little emphasis to help you out):
http://canada.usembassy.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=issues&subsection1=AnnReports&document=HRreport_feb2005

Canada
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor March 2006

... Trial Procedures

The judicial system is based on English common law at the federal level as well as in most provinces; in Quebec Province, it is derived from the Napoleonic Code. Throughout the country, judges are appointed. In criminal trials, the law provides for a presumption of innocence and the right to a public trial, to counsel (which is free for indigents), and to appeal. The prosecution also may appeal in certain limited circumstances.

An Ontario law permits Islamic organizations to hold tribunals in which marriage, family, and business disputes could be settled according to Shari'a law. The tribunals were voluntary, and decisions had to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could be appealed to the court system. On September 11, Ontario's premier announced his government's intention to end civil endorsement of religious arbitration decisions in the province, and on November 15, the Ontario attorney general introduced legislation to end religious arbitration in family matters. On May 26, the National Assembly of Quebec passed legislation prohibiting the use of Islamic courts and Shari'a law in Quebec.

What's left out is that Ontario law had long allowed JEWISH, ROMAN CATHOLIC and ISMAELI religious tribunals to dispose of the same kinds of disputes -- and the Ontario government ended the civil endorsement of the decisions of THOSE tribunals when it decided against allowing Muslim religious tribunals to make civilly enforceable arbitration awards.

Oh, you did note the "civil" element, hmm? Maybe you really, really, really thought that a civil court in Canada could order the stoning of an individual. Can the civil courts do that in the US, and that's why you were confused, maybe? Up here, the civil courts make orders about property and money, and child custody and support; that sort of thing.

And of course, in Canada, criminal law is under federal jurisdiction -- maybe another of those things you've forgotten? -- and so Ontario could not make laws about stoning even if it wanted to.

And then there's the Canadian constitution, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms part of it, and the guarantees of security of the person and suchlike. You thought that maybe a country that long ago abolished the death penalty -- and allows prisoners to vote in elections -- would be favourably disposed to stoning? Sure you did.

As to the link added in your other charming post -- have you forgotten that Iran is not in North America?

If you were talking about Iran, you really should have got your geography straight first.


So, is it all clear now? Ready to admit that the statement you made --

Indeed, just recently in the North American continent I inhabit a certain country with a long parliamentary tradition handed down from England debated whether to allow a certain religious minority to abandon the common law of Western Civilization and permit Sharia "law" to call the score in "domestic" disputes: this would have meant that, in practice, a Muslim woman in Vancouver could have been stoned to death for adultery because her husband caught her casting a gaze that lingered a bit too long over the guy at the next table who was wolfing down donut holes.

-- did not contain an iota of truth? That there was NEVER ANY debate in Canada about whether to allow ANYONE to use ANY law to allow ANYONE to stone ANYONE for doing ANYTHING -- and that no matter what law was applied in voluntary arbitrations of civil disputes, the Criminal Code of Canada would apply to punish very severely ANYONE who did stone ANYONE for doing ANYTHING?

I'm listening.

I won't expect you to admit that making such completely false allegations so irresponsibly in a public forum promotes hatred of the groups you so falsely accused of wanting to do such reprehensible things. That's just obvious.

Oh, and it's tenets, for pity's sake.

[iverglas]

61. except ... it really wasn't "ignorant", was it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=113941#114050

T Town Jake (1000+ posts)
Sun Oct-02-05 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Ah, but I never said...

... Well, it is the legal wrinkles of the Constitution of the United States of America we're discussing here, not the troubling attempt to impose Shari'a law on unwilling subjects or any such similar Canadian controversies now raging in the Great White North.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=113941#114054

iverglas (1000+ posts)
Sun Oct-02-05 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #18

20. Did you ever ask?

... I did invite you to inquire about this invented controversy so that you could clear out the fog that was apparently preventing you from grasping the simple fact that it didn't exist. I didn't notice you asking.



You didn't actually ask -- you just posted something you apparently wanted to pretend was an authority on the issue. But I answered anyhow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=113941&mesg_id=114137

So now you've really got me curious.

How could anyone have read that information in October 2005 and still be saying, in July 2006:

Indeed, just recently in the North American continent I inhabit a certain country with a long parliamentary tradition handed down from England debated whether to allow a certain religious minority to abandon the common law of Western Civilization and permit Sharia "law" to call the score in "domestic" disputes: this would have meant that, in practice, a Muslim woman in Vancouver could have been stoned to death for adultery because her husband caught her casting a gaze that lingered a bit too long over the guy at the next table who was wolfing down donut holes.

-- and claiming, when called on the falsehood of that representation:

Sorry 'bout that, but my understanding of the controversy in question is precisely as I stated it

?

I'm still thinking that the question is: WHY would anyone who did read that information in October 2005 still be saying what you have said in July 2006?

Do you want my theories, or do you want to tell?

If your answer is "to get iverglas's goat", I can only recommend that you not flatter yourself. You wouldn't actually be standing out from the herd in that respect.

[T Town Jake]

59. In another thread upstairs I found this topical link:

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17431866&method=full&siteid=62484&headline=hanged-from-a-crane-aged-16--name_page.html

Now, come again with that chatter about how opposition to the tenents and practices of Sharia law is just "bigotry"? I'd like to see that one more time, just for clarification's sake.

Tip of the hat to TX-RAT, from whose post here I found this link.

[iverglas]

36. not much to report

Seems like there will be no news for a couple of weeks.

Interesting, though ...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_463410.html

Louis Farrell was last seen in the house at about 10:15 p.m. Friday by his older brother, Jeffrey, who thought his brother was heading to bed, authorities said.

Cole said Regola's oldest son, Rob Regola IV, did not accompany his family to Harrisburg, where the senator received the Legislator of the Year Award from the Pennsylvania Sheriff's Association. Cole said the 16-year-old arrived home at about 10:30 p.m. Friday and stayed there through Saturday morning.

According to a search warrant affidavit filed by investigators, Rob Regola IV, a student in the Hempfield Area School District, spoke by telephone with Louis Farrell at about 11:30 p.m. Friday.

Troopers confiscated computer equipment from the Regola home to retrieve possible e-mail messages exchanged between the two youths, who were friends.

I wonder how many Pennsylvania sheriffs have red faces today. Of course, one would have to have a sense of shame for that to happen, and people who give awards to scum like Regola would not appear to have such a thing.

[RamboLiberal]

40. Innocent until proven guilty but I'm betting on stupid horseplay

with the gun and the two teens. I'd bet the Regola kid got the gun since he'd be the one to know where it was stored. I've read too many stories of kids getting accidentally killed by their friend when they play with a a gun found/stored in the home. And with semi-autos a lot of people make the mistake thinking if they pull the magazine that the gun is unloaded. Of course there is one in the chamber. I don't know if Tauraus is one of the guns that can fire the round left in the chamber with the mag out. Some handguns can, some can't. And some people unload the mag and stick it back in forgetting that there is one in the chamber. In this case it could be fired.

[crazed1x]

63. Not just Semi-Autos....

And with semi-autos a lot of people make the mistake thinking if they pull the magazine that the gun is unloaded. Of course there is one in the chamber

Many bolt-action rifles use magazines. It is entirely possible for a bolt-action rifle to have a round chambered, while the magazine is removed.

[honorsdaddy]

65. Just for informational purposes

Your post implied that the handgun in question was made by Taurus.

If that is the case, and if the handgun is less than ~6 years old, then it has an integral trigger lock. No need for an external one (which are frankly MORE dangerous than not having one). The system works by manually locking and unlocking the gun using a separate key. This would allow for it to be located somewhere not easily accessible, yet also be just as safe as if locked up, unless one had access to the key.

As far as a magazine disconnect safety, some models have them, some do not. Either way, the circumstances you described - removing the magazine, emptying it, and putting it back in the gun - would allow the gun to fire if there was one in the chamber regardless of a magazine disconnect safety.

Thus endeth today's lesson in firearms safety features. Tomorrow's lesson will cover the single most important safety feature for any weapon.

[iverglas]

64. aha, more to report

I'd forgotten all about this tale. A thread that deserved resurrection!

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&q=%22robert+regola%22+gun

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_466216.html

The Tribune-Review has asked a Westmoreland County judge to unseal search warrants and affidavits issued in the case of a Hempfield Township teen killed by a gun owned by state Sen. Robert Regola.

... "Unsealing of the search warrant could very well hinder the investigation being conducted by the state police," Peck said.

But in his petition, Strassburger says the public deserves to know details of the investigation because it involves a public official and whether Regola "committed a crime by, among other things, leaving firearms and ammunition unsecured in his home and accessible to minors."

... "The death raises serious questions about the senator's disregard for the risks of leaving guns and ammunition accessible to unsupervised minors. The senator is not only an influential public official, he is an outspoken ally of the law enforcement community. Closure promotes suspicion that he will receive favorable treatment because of his position, his views, and his relationships."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_466059.html

"In a tragic irony, Doug Farrell, from the day he moved into the neighborhood, told Louis he was never to be around the guns," Perry said.

Perry recounted an incident in which the senator's 16-year-old son, Robert, Louis Farrell and another boy were in the Regolas' back yard while the younger Regola was handling a pellet gun.

"Louie was forcefully called from the Regola yard and severely disciplined" for being near the gun, Perry said.

All ya gotta do is train them kids, and they'll be safe ...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06222/712485-59.stm

On the night of July 22, the same day that Louis' body was found, state police obtained a search warrant for a family computer at the Regola residence. According to an affidavit in support of that search warrant, Robert Regola IV had spoken with Louis by phone around 11:30 p.m. the night before.

The search warrant affidavit also stated that an unidentified female acquaintance of both Louis and the younger Regola communicated with Robert Regola IV by AOL instant messaging about Louis' death. It is unclear whether that information is pertinent to the investigation.

The search warrant application noted as possible crimes being investigated the possession of a firearm by a minor and reckless endangerment.

At the scene yesterday, Trooper Stephen Barto told reporters that the lawyers were blocking interviews with Mr. Regola and his son.

Unfortunately, the google news result that is abridged as this:

Regola's son 'frequently kept' gun
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, PA - 14 Aug 2006
... Monday the 16-year-old son of state Sen.
Robert Regola "had complete access (to the gun)
and frequently kept it in the bedroom.". ...

links to a different story altogether, the second one quoted in this post. Hmmm.

Fun 'n games.

[iverglas]

73. and hot off the presses

http://www.gatewaynewspapers.com/penn-traffordstar/64426/

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The warrant issued for the search of Sen. Robert Regola's home remains sealed more than one week after state police spent several hours inside the residence and left with a computer and safe.

... While investigators have yet to disclose where Regola kept his gun in his home, Perry said friends of Louis have said Regola's son, Robert Jr., 16, had shown them the gun in the past.

It strikes me that even in Pennsylvania that last bit may not quite be legal.

Uh oh:
"Family Of Teen Killed By Senator's Gun Speaks Out"
WPXI.com (dead link)
Maybe that's it ... the gun followed him into the woods ...

http://kdka.com/local/local_story_226154515.html

"This is not a suicide," said Farrell family attorney. "The forensic evidence, when it comes to light, will show that this was not a situation where a young man took his life."

Perry says he has not seen the full state police report yet because it isn't finished.

However, he says there was evidence found near Farrell's body that proves he did not commit suicide.

It's evidence the family attorney will not reveal at this time.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17052869&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

Regola's attorney, Mark Rush, said the senator "was not in the habit" of storing his weapons while still loaded, but he refused to comment specifically on the 9mm handgun in question.

"I don't want to comment on the evidence as it has been gathered by the Pennsylvania State Police and I'm disappointed that counsel for the family would do so," Rush said. "As far as a legal conclusion that his gun was stored in a reckless manner, at this time, that's simply a self-serving statement for counsel to make and not borne out by the facts."

Hmm. Unlike the statement that the allegation is "not borne out by the facts" ... that he won't disclose.

[iverglas]

66. comments from an apparent non-gun owner

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/15193409.htm

There had been an accident involving two boys and a loaded handgun, and I had arrived early for the service. Outside, the undertaker paced, waiting for the family to arrive, and a priest smoked a cigarette, ready to pray. Inside, I stood alone beside a small casket holding an 8-year-old boy, shot through the forehead by his best friend. ... That funeral was in Florida in 1996, but I have been thinking about it a lot these past couple of weeks as history repeated itself yet again, this time 30 miles east of Pittsburgh at the home of a popular state legislator.

... Regola, a member of the National Rifle Association, surely is asking himself painful questions in the aftermath of the death. What if he had kept the gun in a locked case? What if he had secured it with a trigger lock? What if he had removed it from the house for the weekend, knowing an unsupervised teenager would be there? What if the father of three simply had decided a home with children is no place for lethal weapons?

... I know I will hear from the gun nuts and firepower freaks, and they will scream the same old bellicose rant. I'm tired of hearing it.

Not a fan of Republicans, this guy ...
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/john_grogan/14720164.htm

[slackmaster]

67. Your subject line sucks donkey balls

The gun didn't shoot anyone, a person did.

As a gun owner I think it is negligence to leave a gun even if hidden away not secured by a trigger lock or locked away if you're allowing access to the house by a juvenile.

I generally agree with you, but would qualify it as an unsupervised juvenile.

[iverglas]

68. oh lordy lordy

Prepositional vaguery ... if it bothers you so (and it does me), you have to be glad you don't have to read stuff in French. They got one preposition (or so you'd think, to read it): "de". Of, from. Or ... by, relating to, in, whatever you like. A francophone excitedly remarked to me (yes, some of us get excited about such things), just last month, after seeing something I'd written in English, what a marvel it was what we anglos did with prepositions.

I've noticed, in my much more limited contact, that Spanish speakers are somewhat the same with their own all-purpose preposition, "por/para".

I tried unsuccessfully to find a recent little discussion that I thought I recalled here on this very point -- where one of your colleagues made this little faux pas. I may have been thinking of BenEzra's spectacular demonstration of doing the very thing he was railing against someone else doing in another situation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=107628&mesg_id=107920

Yes, the word actually used in the article -- "with a gun" -- is generally better. But who do you imagine doesn't know what "shot by a gun" means?

The sassy sisters seem to have the same problem:

http://www.2asisters.org/press/pressrelease/press1.htm
(emphasis added)

women from across the country who represent the 2.5 million people whose lives are saved by guns every year.

Them's some busy guns.

But I suppose that if you're going to say something truly despicably false, ya might as well say it wrong.

Who in whatever's name believes that in a country in which there are about 16,000 homicides a year these days, there would have been TWO AND A HALF MILLION MORE in a single year if those two and a half million people hadn't had guns at hand?

I really just can't get over the stinking dishonesty of that one.

Are would-be killers just so ineffably stupid, or do they just have such quite unbelievably bad luck, that they pick virtually exclusively on the small proportion of the population that happens to have a gun down its pants at any given time??

And would the US really have a homicide rate of 892/100,000 -- as compared to the 5+/100,000 it is now -- if some small percentage of the population weren't toting guns around or keeping them in the glove box or on the bedside table or beside the front door?

Two and a half million people's lives are saved "by guns" every year. I'm really just beyond gobsmacked.

But I digress.

Let's not be disingenuous about our prepositions, eh?


edit: Yikes. The master himself does it.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott16.html

New York City's Latest Anti-Gun Follies
by John R. Lott, Jr.

... The NYPD doesn't even collect information on how many murders are committed by people with a registered gun, as opposed to by a gun obtained illegally.

TSK!

[slackmaster]

69. Since this is a US board let's stick with standard US English usage

Discussions of prepositions in Romance languages and British or Canadian English really have no place in this discussion, no does phrasing that might have been used in a different thread on a different topic by some unnamed other person.

[iverglas]

71. jeeze, way to miss a point

So what did you do, read the first five words? Even managed to miss the part where I said that bad preposition usage bothers me?

Discussions of prepositions in Romance languages and British or Canadian English

You must have some reason for making yourself look both so silly and so rude, I suppose. There was no discussion of anything having to do with "British or Canadian English" in my post. Seeing things, or just inventing them?

(The references to French and Spanish were just amusing side notes -- but also, very obviously, an indication that people everywhere tend to be sloppy about prepositions, no matter who they are, what their politics and what language they speak. This is the sort of information that clever people like to have, if they don't already know it, so that they don't go flying off half-cocked kicking up much dust about nothing ... Emily Litella. Violins on television? Oh. Never mind.)

Funny how you have had so much to say about things that WERE NOT said ... and nothing at all to say about things that WERE said.

Like how THE SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS and His Nibs JOHN LOTT have both been guilty of the very exact same sin for (with? of?) which you reproached your interlocutor.

RKBA-heads say that people are killed "by a gun". And EVERYBODY SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.

Just exactly the way you knew just exactly what was meant by the poster to whom you so belatedly and pointlessly replied. Somebody seems to be in need of his din-din.

[slackmaster]

75. People also say "hit by a train"

But the equivalent in firearms would be "hit by a bullet" not "shot by a gun".

RKBA-heads say that people are killed "by a gun". And EVERYBODY SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.

More straw flying. I never said I didn't understand what the OP meant, only that his usage doesn't fit well with my understanding of common US English. It would sound very sloppy to me if it appeared as a headline for a newspaper article, and I would probably take the time to write an LTTE about it.

[slackmaster]

70. Stutter-click

:hi:

[iverglas]

72. google tells me

that this means something, or at least that it exists. I know not what.

A new generation of "oh. never mind", perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella

Emily Litella was an elderly woman with a hearing problem seen on the op-ed Weekend Update segment in the late 1970s. Dressed in a simple dress and a sweater, "Miss Emily Litella" was introduced with professional dignity by the news anchors, who could sometimes be seen cringing slightly in anticipation of the faux pas which they knew would be inevitable as their "guest" would launch into tirades on various topics.

Radner's character peered through her bifocals and read a prepared letter addressing some public issue, becoming increasingly agitated as her statement progressed, only to discover in the middle of her report that she had gotten the theme of her story wrong. A typical example:

"What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a 'deaf' penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is!"

When the on-air reporter interrupted to point out her error (death vs. deaf), she would crinkle her nose, usually say, "Oh, that's quite different...", and then humbly say to the audience, "Never mind."

... The line "Never mind" became a light-hearted slang phrase of the era.

[slackmaster]

74. Try googling "stutter punch hollerith"

And you'll get the idea.

I am 48 years old and learned to work with computers originally on paper cards.

[slackmaster]

76. Actually, that search doesn't return any meaningful results

Sorry, I learned the term as an undergraduate. It referred to a keypunch operator punching in, for example, 20 columns of data on a Hollerith card when the data set had only 19 elements. A common keypunch error.

I'm a little surprised the term isn't known more widely. It was in common usage within the University of California system in the late 1970s.

[iverglas]

77. but not with the quotation marks

I'm older, and so did I. In fact there are still a bunch of them strewn around on my basement floor; they're probably antiques. (Like the birth control pill package my father wandered up from my basement with one day 10 or 15 years ago. Rather startled, I said that's, um, old, you know. Yes, he said; he'd been watching something on television, and it was a collector's item. How charming; one's youthful contraceptives are now grist for the Antiques Road Show.)

I had my own little punch machine installed in my work room, and had my own guy from the tech firm they'd contracted for it with to teach me about it. Then the govt agency I was doing the work for -- analyzing sentencing patterns, not actually punching cards; I'd have been more careful in that case I think -- paid my taxi fare over to the biiiig computer at the university (govt didn't have much in the way of computers then) and, if I didn't have anything else to do, I'd sit around for a while and wait for the results -- printouts of spss crosstabs -- or, probably as often, to see what mistake I'd made in the punching so I could start over again. Or if they were busy, I'd come back next day to pick up my paper.

I guess actually this qualifies me as a geek. A geezer geek.

[57_TomCat]

78. I too feel this pain...

lets not forget 45 minutes of running punch tape to load and execute simple programs. And then the amazing TRS Model 1 with 4K ram and a magnetic tape storage medium like the big boys. Life was soooo easy back then eh?

[iverglas]

79. okay, so I'm not really a geek ...

I just punched the cards and waited for the printouts, and I wouldn't have understood a word of that. Just another wonk pretending to be a geek.

[krispos42]

90. That 2.5 million is in error

By one federal estimate guns are used defensively (DGU or defensive gun use) 108,000 times per year. That is not a self-defence shooting necessarily, but where the presence of a gun was used to fend off a threat. A university survey found 2.5 million times per year. Later statistical analysis brought that number down to 1.5 million times per year.

Of couse, the feds that analysed the university study are quick to point out some problems with the methodology, and basically end the report by saying "we have no friggin clue".

Not every DGU was in murder, nor was a gun even fired. IMHO is was a lot of showing, probably by intended victims who were illegally carrying a gun. In most major cities it is difficult or impossible to get a CCW permit, and there are a fair number of otherwise honest people to carry illegally. If they show the gun to deter an attacker, neither party calls the cops, and the federal crime estimate will be artifically low.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

[RamboLiberal]

81. Nothing wrong with the headline - you know its tough to fit

all in a subject line. The juvenile was shot by himself or someone with the state senator's gun. If the gun had been inaccessible then this particular incident wouldn't have happened. It's your nitpicken that sucks donkey balls!

Here's headlines written by pro headline writers for news.

Boy killed with lawmaker's gun... http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16965384&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6

Teen killed with state senator's gun http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/15121936.htm

Regola's handgun linked to death http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_463244.html

[iverglas]

80. those charming Republicans

Here's a fun one -- all I can offer is Google's cached version, and I'm treating the letter quoted as not copyright.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Vg9s4FQZWTEJ:www.grassrootspa.com/2004/07/krieger-tapped-to-coordinate-regola.html+&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8

The Epicenter of Conservative Grassroots Activity in Pennsylvania

As the Philadelphia City Paper pointed out before the Casey-Rendell primary, Kukovich is no Casey Democrat.

Kukovich appears to be popular because his views are more liberal than Casey's, and some Casey supporters feel he will help balance Casey out. Casey is relatively conservative. He is pro-life, pro-gun, and into 'working families.'

Kukovich recognizes that the world does not always revolve around traditional families and that a good number of Pennsylvanians live alternative lifestyles. Kukovich is pro-choice, and in the middle of road when it comes to gun control.

(Kukovich campaign manager Mike) Walsh said that between Casey and Rendell, Kukovich may be more like Rendell on certain issues.

Here is a portion of Keiger's letter:

Since the April primary race, many of us have been wondering what to do next to advance the conservative principles which Congressman Toomey so ably represented. One thing the Toomey/Specter race made clear was that the politics of Westmoreland County and southwestern Pennsylvania have been undergoing a transformation -- as our friends and neighbors have come to realize that they can not continue to support what the Democratic Party has become. Regardless of party affiliation, the people of Westmoreland County are conservative, and have shown that they will vote for Republicans when Republicans support conservative principles with a clear consistent voice.

To complete this transformation, one thing is critically important -- we must remain active and engaged in the process -- and be willing to do whatever possible to elect men and women who will stand on principle, who will protect the lives of unborn children, who will uphold the sanctity of marriage and the traditional family, who will respect and defend our constitutional rights, who will work to reduce taxes and wasteful government spending, and who will resist the tendency of government to intrude into every aspect of our lives.

This year in the 39th Pennsylvania Senatorial district, we have a race between Bob Regola, who believes in and upholds these principles, and Allen Kukovich, a self-described liberal who has consistently opposed these principles. I believe we have a wonderful opportunity to complete this transformation by taking the 39th District Senate seat, in the heart of Westmoreland County, away from the liberals. For this reason, I have agreed to serve as coordinator for the Regola for Pennsylvania Senate Campaign, and to do whatever I can to help Bob win in November.

Make no mistake, this race will be tough. Bob has been working very hard, and the Pennsylvania Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has committed significant resources to the race. This race can be won if grassroots conservatives are committed to doing what is necessary to get the message out.

Eeeek! This Kukovich is a self-described liberal!!

How could he ever have hoped to win against a guy who loves his guns so much he leaves 'em lying around for teenaged kids to get hold of?

... Or not. This one I'll let y'all read for yerselves, and make no representations as to its trustworthiness.

http://www.ferdiad.com/blog/archive/2006_07_23_archive.html

Weird shit indeed.


Oh look! I'm googling around for stuff, and I find that RamboLiberal managed to access the story I referred to earlier before it got, er, lost:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2456278
(the link in that post now leads to the same one I got when I went to it earlier, not the one quoted by RamboLiberal ... as I now see is noted in that thread)

Attorney: Regola's son 'frequently kept' gun

The gun that killed 14-year-old Louis Farrell, of Hempfield Township, was often kept in the bedroom of Robert Regola IV, who showed the weapon to friends, says the attorney for the Farrell family.

Attorney Jon Perry, of Pittsburgh, said Monday the 16-year-old son of state Sen. Robert Regola "had complete access (to the gun) and frequently kept it in the bedroom."

Speaking through their attorney, Douglas and Lauren Farrell, of Glenmeade Road, have broken their silence about the mysterious events of July 21-22 when their son died of a gunshot wound to the head from a Taurus 9 mm.

... Perry said it was common knowledge that the young Regola kept the gun in his bedroom and boasted to friends that his father allowed him to keep it even though he was too young to legally own a weapon.

Nah. The senator wasn't reckless with his firearms. Never.

[RamboLiberal]

82. H'mm - Scaife Rag - Trib Review wants search warrants made public

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_466216.html

The Tribune-Review has asked a Westmoreland County judge to unseal search warrants and affidavits issued in the case of a Hempfield Township teen killed by a gun owned by state Sen. Robert Regola.
State police served the search warrants at Regola's Glenmeade Road residence Aug. 9 as part of their investigation into the death of Louis Farrell.

Farrell, 14, whose family lives next to the Regolas, was found dead July 22 in the woods behind his home. Police say he died of a single gunshot wound to the head. Authorities have not ruled whether Farrell's death was a suicide, homicide or an accident.

In a petition filed Tuesday before Judge Rita Hathaway, attorney David Strassburger of the firm of Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick and Potter argues that the documents relating to the search warrants became public once the search was completed.

<snip>

But in his petition, Strassburger says the public deserves to know details of the investigation because it involves a public official and whether Regola "committed a crime by, among other things, leaving firearms and ammunition unsecured in his home and accessible to minors."

[iverglas]

83. now now - you gotta read my updates!

They lost. Warrant info stayed sealed for now.

[RamboLiberal]

88. Wrong they haven't lost - have 10 days to file briefs

A Westmoreland County judge yesterday gave newspaper attorneys 10 days to file briefs arguing why paperwork authorizing a police search of a state senator's home in connection with a teenager's death should be opened to public inspection.

Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck will then have another 10 days to file a brief explaining why the search warrant application, the affidavit supporting it and the list of items taken from the home of Sen. Bob Regola, R-Hempfield, should remain secret.

On Aug. 8, Judge Rita Hathaway sealed a search warrant allowing Pennsylvania State Police to remove a computer and safe the next day from Mr. Regola's home.

State police are investigating the death of Mr. Regola's next-door neighbor, Louis Farrell, 14. Louis was found July 22 about 100 yards from his home with a gunshot wound to his head. Lying next to him was a handgun owned by Mr. Regola. He was dog-sitting while the senator was out of town.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06236/715966-59.stm

[iverglas]

89. oh, well!

Wrong they haven't lost - have 10 days to file briefs

It wasn't wrong when I wrote it now, was it?

On the issue itself, it's a tough one. Regola's arguments have some merit: that making the warrant info public can taint the process.

That's why, up here, there is a fairly routine publication ban issued at preliminary hearings, for instance. (A preliminary hearing is our counterpart of a grand jury proceeding -- except that here, the prosecution is required to present a sufficient case for prosecution in open court, i.e. with the public and media present, and to obtain the judge's authorization to proceed; the accused ordinarily does not call evidence. The judge may commit the accused for trial or discharge him/her then and there.)

Here, it is generally felt that the right of the accused to a fair trial by an impartial court overrides the broad public's right to know the prosecution case. Publishing the evidence presented by the prosecution could taint the jury pool, for instance.

There is a downside, of course, and it exists in cases like this one: the public does have more of an interest in knowing what it is alleged that its elected representatives are getting up to, and how good the case is, than in knowing what the evidence against yer average accused is. Two reasons: to ensure that no special favour is being shown but also to ensure that no excess zeal is being applied, for political motives.

This was a problem here last year when the media sought to have the warrant info revealed in the case of some senior aides to politicians in British Columbia. There had been raids on the offices of Cabinet ministers, there were rumours of drug money funding political campaigns, including eventual and now former Prime Minister Paul Martin's run for the Liberal leadership, there was talk of the bidding process for a huge govt asset having been corrupted by pay-offs. And then there was an election coming. The judge had promised to open the files on a date about 2 months in future, allowing time for police to complete their investigation but then making an exception to the non-disclosure rule, in the public interest. However ... in the meantime, a provincial election was called ... and the judge reneged on the deal, which meant that the public was still in the dark about the allegations against employees, friends and relatives of prominent members of the governing party when it went to the polls. Ew. Smelly.

I think that an arrangement like that is probably best, myself. Give the prosecution a deadline for doing its work, based on whatever reasonable case it makes for needing time (e.g. to get forensic analysis done so it knows what it needs from witnesses, and firm up witness statements) and then open the file.

That may be what will eventually happen here, informally -- the prosecution now has its 10 days, and by then may be in a position where it doesn't need time and thus cannot present a strong enough case to counter the special public interest in disclosure in this instance.

[iverglas]

85. what a bore this tale is, eh?

Let Dianne Feinstein or John Kerry look at a gun funny, and all hell breaks loose in the dungeon.

Let a piece of shit turncoat Democrat right-wing Republican piece of shit (I find it hard to believe how the Democratic Party could even have considered having pieces of shit like that in its ranks, of course ...) allow his children to play with his guns (as it is beyond obvious from credible accounts that he did) -- just for starters -- and the silence is deafening.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_463244.html

Regola, a former Democrat and Hempfield supervisor who turned Republican, made gun-owner rights among the issues during a bitter 2004 campaign against veteran state Sen. Allen Kukovich, a Manor Democrat.

Regola, who notes in his legislative biography that he is a member of the Legislature's Sportsmen's Caucus, Ducks Unlimited and the National Rifle Association, said in his campaign literature that he was an avid defender of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

Dogs, fleas; "gun rights" fanatics, shit ... ya lie down with 'em, ya end up covered in it.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_268852.html

"I'm very excited," Regola said last night. "I just can't wait to get to work and represent this area.

"The people obviously sent the message of (wanting) conservative values. I can't wait to get to work."

Regola, 42, a Hempfield Township supervisor, said he kept hearing about the importance of conservative values wherever he went yesterday.

"Conservative values" ... maybe the nickel that he seems to consider a kid's life not to be worth?

I'm liking this guy's take on things:

http://www.ferdiad.com/blog/2006/08/pecker.html

Let me examine another interesting aspect of the Bob Regola scandal. Almost immediately after Senator Regola’s gun was discovered to have killed his teenage neighbor, Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck stated that he had no evidence of criminality. What the shit John? You don’t say? And why is that exactly?

It is troublesome that the DA would come out and state publicly that no crime had been committed while the investigation was ongoing. As more facts came to light, i.e., that Regola’s son likely killed the neighbor with the Senator’s gun, Peck again reaffirmed that nothing indicates the Senator committed a crime. This seems a little odd given the fact that similar scenario played out in Westmoreland County only a few years ago.

A few years back Mr. Robert Lewis and his girlfriend went to work. Unfortunately, Mr. Lewis left his handgun in the nightstand next to his bed. Mr. Lewis’s teenage son knew where that gun was kept. Despite the fact that Mr. Lewis locked the bedroom door, his son managed to break in and get the gun to show his friends. As he was showing off the gun he accidentally shot and killed one of his friends. Both Mr. Lewis and his girlfriend were charged with a number of crimes, including reckless endangerment. The son was tried for involuntary manslaughter. None other than District Attorney John Peck prosecuted the cases. ...

The question then arises; why is Peck so readily dismissing charges against Regola and/or his son? I can only think of one difference. Mr. Lewis was a poor regular American living in a trailer park and Senator Regola is a wealthy white Republican living in a $500,000 mansion.

Sure is odd that they'd be executing search warrants just a couple of short weeks after what now seems to have been a rather prematurely ejaculated bit of spin.

Feinstein clumsily handles an absolutely unquestionably unloaded firearm in public, Kerry gets caught on film at the instant he turns his head after taking a shot before removing his finger from the trigger ... a kid is killed with a handgun that Regola left lying around somewhere ... and the silence is deafening.

He obviously cannot be trusted to follow the most elemental rules of firearms safety. How the hell can he be trusted to make laws about firearms???

[crazed1x]

86. What is there to say?

Kid died.. it's sad. If someone murdered him, then than person him should go to prison for life or get the death penalty. Senator should probably get some punishment for leaving a loaded firearm where a minor could easily get to it.

[iverglas]

87. and to think I'd missed this

When I found it with google, I thought I'd probably have to hope there was a cached version, because surely it wouldn't still be there. Nope. No shame at all, some people.

http://www.bobregola.com

Dedicated to defending the 2nd Amendment.
Bob is an avid sportsman and 2nd Amendment supporter.
He has been a hunter for over 30 years and
has taught his children gun safety
and responsible hunting skills.

Slow learners, I guess.

[RamboLiberal]

91. No Fingerprints Found On Senator's Handgun

http://kdka.com/local/local_story_241212448.html

<snippets>

New information in the death of a 14-year-old Westmoreland County boy indicates that the boy’s DNA was on the gun.

Sources tell KDKA’s Marty Griffin that there were no fingerprints found on the gun, but DNA evidence shows the gun was in Farrell's hand at some point.

When state police asked to talk to Senator Regola's 16-year-old son Robert one more time, family attorneys said no.

Sources say that investigators are still going over evidence obtained in a search at the Regola home two weeks ago and that they do not believe Farrell removed the 9mm gun that killed him from the Regola home on his own.

Sources say the lack of fingerprints on the weapon is not particularly unusual because some guns don't easily pick up fingerprints. They also say forensic evidence shows Farrell held the handgun at one point, but that does not necessarily mean he committed suicide.

[iverglas]

92. "The mystery of the boy and the senator's gun"

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/bucks_county/15825057.htm

Posted on Mon, Oct. 23, 2006
The mystery of the boy and the senator's gun
By Joe Mandak
Associated Press

PITTSBURGH - Three months after a boy was found fatally shot with a gun owned by a state senator, the investigation is not finished, and a coroner says an inquest will likely be held if no agreement can be reached soon on the circumstances of the shooting. Investigators believe Louis Farrell, 14, was alone when he died in woods behind his home but have not determined whether someone else shot him or he shot himself, either accidentally or intentionally.

... State Sen. Bob Regola (R., Westmoreland), who owns the gun, was out of town the day of the shooting and has denied that he or anyone else in his family had anything to do with it. But police no longer consider Regolas to be cooperating in the investigation because their attorneys have balked at letting police reinterview Regola or his 16-year-old son unless they know the questions in advance.

... The boy died of a single gunshot wound to the head. County Coroner Ken Bacha must rule on the manner of his death. Bacha said he would not issue a final ruling until he meets with the district attorney and state police investigators, likely in mid-November. "They had some loose ends I knew they needed to finish up," Bacha said. "Interviews, forensic testing, cell phone records."

If the investigators can't agree at next month's meeting on the circumstances of Louis Farrell's death, Bacha said he would likely convene an inquest, to which witnesses can be subpoenaed and made to testify under oath.

http://www.wpxi.com/news/10061947/detail.html

The senator told Target 11's Rick Earle that he thinks the gun was stolen out of his house and that Farrell's death was self-inflicted.

Regola said that he and his son have both cooperated completely with authorities.

On Tuesday, attorneys fought to get investigators to open search warrants in the case.

The documents were ordered to remain sealed for now.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/today/s_473513.html

A Westmoreland County judge Wednesday ordered that two warrants used in the Aug. 9 search of the home of state Sen. Robert Regola in Hempfield Township be unsealed.

Judge Rita Hathaway ruled the press is entitled to see the information contained in the warrants, saying they would not impede the investigation into the July 22 shooting death of Louis Farrell, 14, who lived next to Regola. Farrell died of a gunshot wound to the head from a gun registered to the senator. The last person to talk to Farrell was the senator’s 16-year-old son, Robert Regola IV.

Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck immediately filed notice that he will appeal Hathaway’s decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_474721.html
(editorial from newspaper that applied for warrants to be unsealed and lost on the appeal)

Friday, October 13, 2006

Just as the search warrants executed for the home of state Sen. Bob Regola, R-39, were about to be unsealed, the government snatched away the public's clear right to access.

Why? A judge found no reason whatsoever to keep the warrants sealed. Is the public's right to know so arbitrary? Or is there a separate legal standard when a state senator is involved?

[aikoaiko]

93. This case has me me conflicted....

On one hand, I think its really stupid to leave a loaded unsecured weapon in house in which you know a unsupervised minor (albeit an ostensibly responsible teenager) will have access.

On the other hand, teenagers find trouble in houses when unsupervised and sometimes terrible accidents occur. He could have drowned in pool, taken car keys and had a car accident, burned down the house from smoking someones cigars, poisoned himself by getting into the alohol cabinet, etc. If these events had occured, they would be written off as accidents.

I would suspect a civil suit might by more productive than a legal one depending on the state laws. Cases like this make me wonder about one's responsibility when one lets someone in one's house. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds. Thanks for the update.

[Wickerman]

94. What concerns me is application of justice

Why? A judge found no reason whatsoever to keep the warrants sealed. Is the public's right to know so arbitrary? Or is there a separate legal standard when a state senator is involved?

Doesn't seem is it being applied in a manner equal to that which a non-Senator's son might receive.

[aikoaiko]

95. yeah, that too.

I hate classist justice.

[iverglas]

96. "Warrant says lawmaker's son was 'deceptive' in shooting probe"

The warrant info has been unsealed.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/16019403.htm
- today's date

PITTSBURGH - A state senator's son seemed to know his friend was dead before anyone told him and was "somewhat deceptive" when investigators asked him about how the lawmaker's gun wound up next to the boy's body, according to a police affidavit unsealed Wednesday.

... Police said Farrell's father went to Regola's home minutes after he found his son's body and called 911. When Farrell's father asked the younger Regola if he owned a gun, the boy replied, "Well jeez, Mr. Farrell, the strangest thing happened last night, my gun is missing," police said in the affidavit.

The younger Regola, who goes by Bobby, called his girlfriend a few minutes later and told her his friend was dead, even though Farrell's father never told him that, police said. Bobby Regola had also called his girlfriend the night before to tell her his gun was missing, police said.

Police were told about both of those conversations from the girlfriend, not from Bobby Regola, the affidavit said.

I'd managed to miss this one earlier:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_471316.html
- September 20

The senator's son said he found a door ajar and "other indications" that someone had been in the house before he arrived home.

... Bobby Regola called his father in Harrisburg and told him the gun was missing, Rush said. Regola's mother and brother, who were staying at the family's hunting camp, were called and were asked if they had taken the gun.

Sen. Regola called his brother, Ron, who also lives on Glenmeade Drive, who went to the house "because his son was scared," Rush said.

Despite their concern over the missing weapon, none of the Regolas contacted the state police.

Such responsible law-abidin' gun owners they do seem to be.

[Raskolnik]

97. What is it that you want people to give you here?

It appears that the Regolas have been less than responsible in their gun ownership, and less than forthcoming in this investigation. So what? What do you think that this demonstrates for any larger discussion?

Honestly, this isn't that interesting a story. Its certainly tragic, but I don't see why the actions of some two-bit douchebag senator and his son should keep me up at night.

Could you help me out?

[Wickerman]

98. Umm, this is a gun forum on a political board?

Firearm. Improper handling of firearm. Senator.

reason enough for me to be interested. :shrug:

[Raskolnik]

99. I'm curious about what Iverlas thinks it means. n/t

[iverglas]

100. why don't you ask the person who started the thread?

I'm just updating the story. I can hardly say anything useful about why the story is here, since I didn't put it here.

I don't think I noticed you whining at the person who posted the tale to start with, but maybe I missed something. I'll go check. Hahahaha.

[Raskolnik]

101. Because I'm asking you.

Particularly, what do mean by Such responsible law-abidin' gun owners they do seem to be.?

[iverglas]

102. hmm, I wonder, I wonder, I wonder

Mmmmmmm ... nope, I don't. We're done!

[Raskolnik]

103. Yeah, I guess actually taking a position would be out of the question.

Why take a position on something when innuendo is so much more effective. That way, we can endlessly debate what was or was not actually implied.

[iverglas]

104. taking a position on ... wtf?

Your question was this:

What is it that you want people to give you here?

Why would you imagine that I want "people" to "give" me anything?

A thread exists in the Guns forum. Many people have posted in this thread. The person who started the thread asked for the thoughts of gun owners on the story in question. I am not a gun owner.

Several updates to the original story have been posted. Some of them were posted by the person who started the thread. I wonder what s/he wants people to give him/her. I wonder why you aren't asking him/her that question. I don't really, but I could. If I wanted to.

I find the story itself quite fascinating. Presumably, the person who started the thread found it at least a tad interesting. It appears that at least one other person finds it somewhat interesting.

You don't? Who the hell might care?

Here's a suggestion. If you don't find the story interesting, don't read any more of it.

[Raskolnik]

105. Oh, I forgot you're easily baffled by questions. My mistake.

Why would you imagine that I want "people" to "give" me anything?

Because I read your post #85

I'm asking you directly, what do *you* think this story means in the context of gun rights?

[iverglas]

106. oh goodie, a "direct" loaded question

I'm asking you directly, what do *you* think this story means in the context of gun rights?

Mu, mu, mu.

I don't think the story means ANYTHING "in the context of gun rights", because that is just a nonsense phrase.

I do think the story might be one worth keeping in mind when thinking about FIREARMS POLICY, of course.

In the context of firearms policy, I think it is worth considering that:

- people who claim to be concerned about "responsiblity" in firearms handling (see Mr. Regola's website, quoted earlier), and about the safety of children in relation to firearms, are sometimes shown to be lying pieces of shit by their own actions

- people who claim to be concerned about "responsiblity" in firearms handling are sometimes shown to be irresponsible pieces of shit by their own actions

- people who qualify to possess firearms by all the usual standards of their jurisdiction sometimes handle firearms in ways that no "responsible" person would do


Guess I'm all alone. Sniff.

[Raskolnik]

107. I'm terribly sorry I didn't ask in the proper form.

Thank you for being gracious enough to overlook my clumsiness and provide some discussion. I'll try not to let you down again.

Your discussion, however, doesn't seem to be anything other than some truisms:

- people who claim to be concerned about "responsiblity" in firearms handling (see Mr. Regola's website, quoted earlier), and about the safety of children in relation to firearms, are sometimes shown to be lying pieces of shit by their own actions

- people who claim to be concerned about "responsiblity" in firearms handling are sometimes shown to be irresponsible pieces of shit by their own actions

- people who qualify to possess firearms by all the usual standards of their jurisdiction sometimes handle firearms in ways that no "responsible" person would do

I certainly can't take issue with any of those statements. Of course, the reason I can't take issue is because you've just made some general statements of fact. Of course some people behave irresponsibly. Of course innocent people often bear the costs of that irresponsibility. Of course people are often hypocrites. How is that in any way unique to the FIREARMS POLICY question?

Your statements are merely the givens from which any rational discussion of FIREARMS POLICY must start. Now that we both agree that people are capable of behaving like people, we can take the next step and actually see if this particular set of facts has any bearing on FIREARMS POLICY. Do you think they do? I certainly don't.

[iverglas]

108. good for you!

Your statements are merely the givens from which any rational discussion of FIREARMS POLICY must start. Now that we both agree that people are capable of behaving like people, we can take the next step and actually see if this particular set of facts has any bearing on FIREARMS POLICY. Do you think they do? I certainly don't.

I guess we're finally done whatever it was we were supposed to be doing.

[Raskolnik]

109. No, actually, we didn't do anything.

If you think that merely pointing out that people sometimes behave poorly is actually the same as a discussion of FIREARMS POLICY, you are simply mistaken.

Do you think that the particular facts of this case demonstrate the need for a particular FIREARMS POLICY?

[iverglas]

111. duh.

I wonder whether that was my point.

And I wonder why I or anyone would discuss firearms policy with someone who states that s/he certainly doesn't think that this particular set of facts has any bearing on FIREARMS POLICY.

Good lord, how could the possession of a handgun -- owned by a lawful firearms owner / elected representative who bleats about responsible firearms handling / firearms safety and children and who admits that said firearm was not stored securely -- by the 16-yr-old child of said elected representative, which child refers to the firearm as "my gun" and was known to keep the handgun in his bedroom, and which firearm was used to cause the death of another child -- have anything whatsoever to do with firearms policy???

I'm sure I just can't imagine.

Surely there is nothing at all that could be done to reduce the risks of such things happening.

And obviously, even if there is, it ought not to be.

Have I got it, now?

[Raskolnik]

112. You talked in a circle without actually saying anything.

Surely there is nothing at all that could be done to reduce the risks of such things happening.

Yet for some reason, you want to keep your proposal a secret. If you think legislation could have prevented this, let's hear it. Personally, I don't think anything short of a total ban on firearms can prevent this type of tragedy, and I do not think such a ban is wise. Perhaps that makes me a "fanatic" in your eyes, but I am not willing to give up a Constitutional right that I believe does serve a legitimate function. A society with firearms will *always* have knuckleheads like this senator. Do you disagree?

And Iverglas, I'm not impressed when you write paragraphs and paragraphs just to avoid making any sort of direct statement. If you can't actually take a position and defend it, don't bother with all the other fluff.

[iverglas]

114. okey dokey -- it's a deal

If you think legislation could have prevented this, let's hear it.

If you think legislation can prevent murder, let's hear it.
Or shoplifting.
Or speeding.
Or anything else your little heart might desire.

I still won't think that legislation will prevent children being killed with firearms ... and guess what??? I have never said it would, and I certainly didn't say it would in the post of mine you responded to, so dog knows why you said this particular silly thing ... but maybe you'll have fun.


Yet for some reason, you want to keep your proposal a secret.

My proposal? I get only one? Funny ... I've had several recommendations (I don't make proposals about other people's public policies, and I don't need to recommend or propose the things in question when it comes to my own public policy, because they already exist) ... and if you've managed to miss 'em all the times they've been offered, then that's a shame.

Why you would make the false statement that I want to keep my proposal a secret -- when I have no proposal to be kept secret, and I have not kept anything else at all a secret -- I just wouldn't know.


Personally, I don't think anything short of a total ban on firearms can prevent this type of tragedy, and I do not think such a ban is wise.

Personally, I think you're just blathering. Bans don't prevent anything, nobody here suggested they would, nobody was talking about bans, no person with a stitch of sense would raise the subject.


A society with firearms will *always* have knuckleheads like this senator. Do you disagree?

Every society I expect to see in my lifetime will have pieces of shit like this senator. And that has nothing to do with whether the society has firearms or not. What was your point?


And Iverglas, I'm not impressed when you write paragraphs and paragraphs just to avoid making any sort of direct statement.

But hey there! I'm impressed all to hell with the diversionary dancing and mumbo jumbo incantations proferred by the rkba-head crowd at every turn just to avoid, oh, cooking dinner, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Your statement seems to contain within it the allegation that I have avoided making any sort of direct statement. How sad for you that your allegation is so false, eh?


If you can't actually take a position and defend it, don't bother with all the other fluff.

And if you can't actually behave like a person sincerely interested in civil discourse -- such a person, you see, would not make the false statement that I have not taken a position and defended it (because such a person would do his/her homework and know that the statement in question is false, or at least would not make the statement without good reason to believe it is true, such good reason being nonexistent in this case) -- well, just keep on keeping on. I am fairly easily amused.

[Raskolnik]

117. Wait, was that you're idea of actually taking a position?

If so, wow. Just wow.

Nowhere in your lengthy post did you even approach making a direct statement of your opinion about relevance of the actual subject of this story. Perhaps you could identify an actual position in the following:

Or shoplifting.
Or speeding.
Or anything else your little heart might desire.

I still won't think that legislation will prevent children being killed with firearms ... and guess what??? I have never said it would, and I certainly didn't say it would in the post of mine you responded to, so dog knows why you said this particular silly thing ... but maybe you'll have fun.

My proposal? I get only one? Funny ... I've had several recommendations (I don't make proposals about other people's public policies, and I don't need to recommend or propose the things in question when it comes to my own public policy, because they already exist) ... and if you've managed to miss 'em all the times they've been offered, then that's a shame.

Why you would make the false statement that I want to keep my proposal a secret -- when I have no proposal to be kept secret, and I have not kept anything else at all a secret -- I just wouldn't know.

Personally, I think you're just blathering. Bans don't prevent anything, nobody here suggested they would, nobody was talking about bans, no person with a stitch of sense would raise the subject.

Every society I expect to see in my lifetime will have pieces of shit like this senator. And that has nothing to do with whether the society has firearms or not. What was your point?

But hey there! I'm impressed all to hell with the diversionary dancing and mumbo jumbo incantations proferred by the rkba-head crowd at every turn just to avoid, oh, cooking dinner, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Your statement seems to contain within it the allegation that I have avoided making any sort of direct statement. How sad for you that your allegation is so false, eh?

And if you can't actually behave like a person sincerely interested in civil discourse -- such a person, you see, would not make the false statement that I have not taken a position and defended it (because such a person would do his/her homework and know that the statement in question is false, or at least would not make the statement without good reason to believe it is true, such good reason being nonexistent in this case) -- well, just keep on keeping on. I am fairly easily amused.

My question remains: what does this story mean for FIREARMS POLICY? Do you think it illustrates the need for some sort of government action? Does it highlight the need for society to change in some way? Does it prove some point you're trying to make?

And once again, I plead with you Iverglas: I am not impressed nor interested when you spend so much energy parsing questions and taking offense. Just make a statement about what YOU think, and we'll go from there. If you don't have anything of substance to offer, then why bother typing at all?

[Raskolnik]

118. And yes, "you're" should be "your" . Cut & paste betrayed me.

[iverglas]

119. and my question remains

If you want to know why this story was posted in this forum, WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE PERSON WHO POSTED IT?

Do you think it illustrates the need for some sort of government action?

YES. I have repeatedly said in this forum (and if you're too lazy to look, it's no one's problem but your own) that I recommend SAFE/SECURE STORAGE LEGISLATION.

How you could POSSIBLY have not grasped this after reading my earlier posts in this thread alone ... it hardly bears thinking about.

If the laws of the jurisdiction in question had required that firearms be stored securely -- and not in a plastic box in a closet, as it appears this one was -- then it is highly unlikely that the young person who is now dead would have been able to access it ... if we can assume that a state senator would have been likely to obey the laws he is elected to make. Law-abidin' gun owner? I'd hope so.


And once again, I plead with you Iverglas: I am not impressed nor interested when you spend so much energy parsing questions and taking offense. Just make a statement about what YOU think, and we'll go from there. If you don't have anything of substance to offer, then why bother typing at all?

And once again, I will tell you -- although why it would not be crystal clear in your head at this point already, I again can't imagine -- that I just don't give a flying fuck about whether you are or are not impressed, or interested, or covered in purple polka dots. Any chance you'd like to spare anyone further descriptions of your state of mind or any other boring detail about yourself?

[Raskolnik]

120. How could I POSSIBLY misunderstand such clear positions?

YES. I have repeatedly said in this forum (and if you're too lazy to look, it's no one's problem but your own) that I recommend SAFE/SECURE STORAGE LEGISLATION.

How you could POSSIBLY have not grasped this after reading my earlier posts in this thread alone ... it hardly bears thinking about.

I don't know how I could POSSIBLY have missed that. Especially when you make statements like:

I still won't think that legislation will prevent children being killed with firearms ... and guess what??? I have never said it would, and I certainly didn't say it would in the post of mine you responded to, so dog knows why you said this particular silly thing ... but maybe you'll have fun.

Ok, now that we're talking about SAFE/SECURE STORAGE LEGISLATION, let's talk about how that would work. I think that trigger-locks, gun safes, etc. are certainly good ideas to encourage as public policy, but I'm not at all sure about mandating them through legislation. I think as a practical matter, such legislation would be nearly unenforceable without periodic home inspections, and I'm not thrilled at all with that prospect.

What do you think useful SAFE/SECURE STORAGE LEGISLATION would look like?

[iverglas]

121. get a gold star

and search for iverglas / safe/secure storage.

[Raskolnik]

122. Oh, *now* you can't bothered to type a few paragraphs?

You can spend hundreds and hundreds of words to take offense at being misunderstood and you can spend paragraph after paragraph obfuscating about what is/was actually being asked, but you suddenly can't be bothered to muster a few sentences that go beyond the level of platitude?

Sheesh.

[Irreverend IX]

123. Here's one thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=119761

And an asinine one at that. Basically, she feels that on as well as a ban on handguns, a law should be passed requiring any non-restricted firearm to be protected by 24-hour security measures both passive and active. In her words...

"I might suggest that "active security" could be satisfied by functioning burglar alarms, not easily defeated, to which someone can be expected / is required to actually respond. Although personally, I'd prefer a physical human presence in addition -- i.e. along with a mechanical alarm system, locks and thick steel -- as an alarm system, not really as a defence system. That way it would be a little less tempting to try to defeat either the mechanical or the human alarm."

A thick steel vault with armed guards. I guess the poor will have to count on the cops for protection--good thing they're known for their fast response to incidents in bad neighborhoods.

[iverglas]

124. Damn, she's a weird one

Basically, she feels that on as well as a ban on handguns, a law should be passed requiring any non-restricted firearm to be protected by 24-hour security measures both passive and active. In her words...

Basically, and every other way, that's a big fat false statement.


Topic of thread referenced:

Collector lost $40,000 in firearms

A little more detail:

Dozens of high-powered weapons that have flooded Toronto streets were stolen from a well-known gun collector and firearms instructor who kept his dangerous stash in a subsidized housing apartment in Scarborough.

One of the guns taken from the apartment was used last September in one of the worst bloodbaths in the history of Toronto - a triple murder near the end of the Summer of the Gun, in a year marked by the worst gun violence the city has seen. Today, the collector, Mike Hargreaves, is a fugitive from Canadian justice, living in a modest, two-storey stucco home a few kilometres from Disney World. Many of the 32 to 35 guns stolen from his Toronto apartment (machine guns, Glock handguns and assault rifles) are still on the streets.

... Police say they have now recovered about 15 of the guns since the New Year's break-in two years ago and that their investigations show the "Gilder guns" were also used in a downtown robbery and a road-rage incident, according to 41 Division Det. Const. Tom Imrie, who led the probe into the break-in.

Previous effort to assert the same false thing, rebuffed by moi:

me:
- "collectors" should not be permitted to maintain their collections in residential premises or in premises that are not subject to effective 24-hour active security (not merely passive security, i.e. locks etc.).

<person whose effort to assert something false - "The Iverglas agenda" - was being rebuffed>:
No firearms may be possessed unless they have 24 hour active security. Armed guards, I presume?

Can you spot the differences between these pictures?

Well, can you? I'll bet you can, all evidence to the contrary even.

Just one question, though.

Why didn't you pretend that when I said:

"I might suggest that "active security" could be satisfied by functioning burglar alarms, not easily defeated, to which someone can be expected / is required to actually respond. Although personally, I'd prefer a physical human presence in addition -- i.e. along with a mechanical alarm system, locks and thick steel -- as an alarm system, not really as a defence system. That way it would be a little less tempting to try to defeat either the mechanical or the human alarm."

... I was talking about what people should have to do if they're going to own a paring knife?

Your assertion would have been just as credible as the one you made. Just as false and baseless, that is, of course. Why go only half hog? Surely, if you figure there are people hanging around here who would believe something as bizarrely false as what you did say, there might be someone who would believe that.


A thick steel vault with armed guards. I guess the poor will have to count on the cops for protection--good thing they're known for their fast response to incidents in bad neighborhoods.

Ah yes. "The poor" -- the many, many of them who own $40,000 worth of firearms, fraudulently secure possession of a rental unit in a subsidized housing building in Toronto, and then go away to the home they own in Florida ... knowing that those guns in the big safe in the empty apartment back in Toronto were protecting them.

Too bad about the lack of fast response to incidents in bad neighbourhoods where you're at, or at least according to you. Maybe you should try to get yourself some kind of functioning government.

Maybe you should just try not to be quite so transparent in your false allegations, in the meantime. "Asinine" just isn't the word I'd be using for your current effort. Vile, despicable, rotten, scummy, anti-democratic ... those might be more along the lines of what I'd be saying if I were to be saying something.

[Raskolnik]

125. See? You can spend hundreds of words to tell us what you're *not* saying

why not just tell us what you *are* saying, and save us all the time and effort? Did you ever think that one of the reasons you must constantly play the part of the aggrieved and misunderstood intellectual is because you rarely (if ever) make any sort of direct statement about your ideas for pragmatic FIREARMS POLICY?

The devil is in the details in this issue, and by avoiding those unpleasant details, you simply never move beyond platitude into the realm of practical, workable solutions to very difficult problems.

[iverglas]

127. maybe, but it sure took just a very few to say that what you were saying was FALSE

Didn't it?

What you were saying was false.

Are you saying you didn't know it was false?

If you want to say that you didn't know it was false, why don't you just say so????

Of course, you'll need to explain how you could possibly not have known it was false, and the only explanation I can imagine why someone in your situation would not have known this would be an admission s/he is really not very bright, since I can't imagine anyone with two brain cells to rub together not knowing that the assertion that I feel "that ... as well as a ban on handguns, a law should be passed requiring any non-restricted firearm to be protected by 24-hour security measures both passive and active" was false.

But I'm willing to wait for your explanation of why you made the false statement.

Why not just tell us what it is?

Did you ever think that one of the reasons you must constantly play the part of the aggrieved and misunderstood intellectual is because you rarely (if ever) make any sort of direct statement about your ideas for pragmatic FIREARMS POLICY?

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about unimportant people's fantasies about myself or anyone else, actually.


As usual, boldface (other than for the dates of the posts) indicates things said by third parties, italics indicate things previously said by me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=124088&mesg_id=124223

iverglas
Thu Apr-27-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. where have you been all my life?

... because said law-abiding dealers and owners suddenly develop a conscience, or at least a healthy respect for laws that require them to stop behaving that way on pain of punishment and that include some mechanisms to make it actually possible to convict them of doing it
What mechanisms might those be? This ought to be good.

It's been good for a very long time. And I'm always happy to say it for the brazilianth time for a newbie.


(1) safe/secure storage laws

Thousands and thousands of firearms pass into criminal hands because their legal owners are too stupid or piggish to store them securely and they are stolen in break-ins. Criminal liability should attach if a firearm that was not securely stored is stolen, regardless of whether it is used for criminal purposes -- and if a firearm gets into the hands of a child, regardless of whether the child or anyone else is injured.

(2) licensing requirements for firearms owners

Not just those "background checks". Permanent records of who is licensed to acquire and possess firearms (with licences only available to people who have taken appropriate courses), and requirement that a licence be presented by anyone acquiring a firearm from anyone by any method.

(3) firearms registry

The only way that the licensing requirement can be enforced, i.e. that transfers to unqualified/disqualified individuals by "law-abiding gun owners" can be deterred. Once the initial sale is recorded, all subsequent transfers must be registered, and ownership of the firearm can be traced to its last legal owner.


These laws are directed to legal, law-abiding firearms owners, most of whom have incentives to obey the law: their conscience; what they stand to lose if they are caught breaking the law. Those two factors set them apart from their criminal counterparts, along with the fact that they don't have the incentive to break the law that the criminals have (since they need firearms for purposes for which the non-criminals don't, and they can't acquire them legally).

The effect of legal, law-abiding firearms owners

(1) storing their firearms securely
(2) being identifiable and having to identify themselves in order to engage in legal firearms transactions
(3) having an incentive not to engage in prohibited transfers, whether knowingly or unknowingly

can reasonably be expected to be a reduction in the flow of firearms from legal owners to people who are or should be prohibited from possessing firearms. (A firearms registry also has other purposes and effects, but we'll stick with the "keeping guns out of criminals' hands" issue for now.)

And the effect of reducing that flow can reasonably be expected to be a reduction in firearms violence and firearms-facilitated crime, in the medium and long term. Obviously, there is a large supply of firearms already in criminal circulation in the US, and they are not going to go away the day legislation is enacted.

Of course, I also recommend very severe restrictions on the acquisition and possession of handguns, the weapon of choice for facilitating crimes and causing intentional death and injury, and the weapon vastly most commonly used for those purposes in the US.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126427&mesg_id=126486

iverglas
Thu Jul-13-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. nope

... I insist that all those people's firearms be registered, and that they meet stringent criteria before being permitted to acquire and possess firearms, and that they comply with safe/secure storage rules -- and ... I oppose handgun possession by members of the public ...



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=126546&mesg_id=126760

iverglas
Thu Jul-20-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. eh?

... Which ones would you like to see 'outlawed'?

Why don't you just try paying attention? You've been here two years now; you're not actually just jumping into an existing conversation with two big feet and demanding that the participants explain themselves to you. It really just is not my problem if you don't know what I've said, and I really do get bored to tears by such efforts to keep the conversation going in circles.

Oh look. I'm pretty sure you read this post, because you were rather active in the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119783

And oh look -- your post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119816
my post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=119761&mesg_id=119830

Let me save you the wear and tear on your pinkies:

You: And if gun safes fail -- the next step may be total ban, eh?

Me: You're right. If public safety cannot be ensured by permitting people to possess certain firearms subject to conditions (whether because the conditions are never adequate for the purpose or because it proves impossible to secure compliance with them), the only way to protect the public may be to cease permitting people to possess them.

The "certain firearms" under discussion were of course handguns -- which people are allowed to possess now, with few exceptions, only for sporting purposes if they are members of approved clubs or to hold as part of collections. I advocate removing the provision excepting "collectors" from the general prohibition on possession of handguns other than by shooting club members. (And I would also advocate prohibiting the possesion of handguns by those people off the club premises, the most determining reason being that too many of both groups have demonstrated their complete inability/refusal to comply with safe/secure storage rules and as a result their firearms have ended up being used to commit crimes and cause harm.)

Happy?

But I'm glad you would allow people to own long guns. Does that include semiauto rifles similar looking to the ones the military uses (except not full auto or burst fire!!!) as they are long guns too? Or do you want them 'outlawed'? Or restricted?

I have given the source for Canadian rules in this regard, which I support, and the rules themselves, on quite a few occasions. Use your gold star and do a search for my name and "canlii". In short: they already are. And I agree.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=129303&mesg_id=129427

iverglas
Tue Oct-03-06 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
96. goodness, I don't think you've ever asked me!

I've issued this challenge several times....
...once more wont' hurt. Please, tell us your plan. Tell us how IT will work, when similar plans to stop pot, liquor, heroin, porn, gambling, you fukcing name it, have not.

"Similar plans"? How can you know what someone's plan is similar to, when you don't even know what it is? Spew straw, much?

Do a little searchy on my name, and you will find much. You want to look for things like

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers

Oh, and strict controls on acquisition and possession of handguns, the criminal/murderer's weapon of choice. Preferably no acquisition and possession of handguns. Not an easy thing to implement when your country is awash in the bloody things, but the longest journey starts with a single step and all that. And in the meantime, there are always

regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms
legislation requiring licensing of individuals seeking to acquire/possess firearms
legislation requiring registration of firearms ownership/transfers


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=130282&mesg_id=130368

iverglas
Mon Oct-16-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. howdy!

... There are several things that can contribute to making it difficult for people to possess / traffic in firearms illegally.

(1) Safe/secure storage laws
- these are directed toward those fearful / law-abidin' folks, who are susceptible to the threat of punishment and/or who don't like breaking laws, equally importantly, the educating effect of laws: the reasons for such laws are obvious to anyone who thinks about it, and anyone who cares at all about public safety will quickly grasp the wisdom of complying with them.

Safe/secure firearms storage could keep hundreds of thousands of firearms out of criminal hands in the US every year.

(2) Firearms registration
- if every firearms transaction (sale, gift, purchase) must be registered, people who are not inclined by nature to break laws can be expected to think twice before selling firearms to strangers in parking lots. They will be engaging in an illegal transaction, and if their purchaser turns out to have criminal plans for the firearm, it could be traced to the vendor and consequences ensue, so many people who are motivated by fear of punishment will also think twice.

(3) Licensing of firearms owners
- this goes in tandem with firearms registration: any transfer to an unlicensed owner would be an unlawful transfer, so the same people would be deterred from engaging in such transfers.

__________________________________

That's the last 6 months, on a very simple search.

And you've been here since 2002, and you take a rather lively interest in all things moi, and you've managed to miss every single one of 'em. Have I got that?

So. When can I expect the next rerun of the iverglas never says anything pissing and moaning soap opera?

A lot sooner than I can expect you to be retracting your false statements, I predict.

[Raskolnik]

130. Now that wasn't so hard was it? (Perhaps it was.)

It took you a while, and you couldn't resist doing it in the voice of the poor misunderstood Iverglas, but you did get there eventually. Thank you.


I'm particularly intrigued by:

(1) safe/secure storage laws

Thousands and thousands of firearms pass into criminal hands because their legal owners are too stupid or piggish to store them securely and they are stolen in break-ins. Criminal liability should attach if a firearm that was not securely stored is stolen, regardless of whether it is used for criminal purposes -- and if a firearm gets into the hands of a child, regardless of whether the child or anyone else is injured.

That question of "secure" storage certainly begs the question: what would you consider to be adequately "secure" storage? Would different standards apply for urban and rural areas, and even perhaps for handguns and long guns? Under your scenario, trigger locks would seem to be inadequate to avoid criminal liability, and even portable gun safes would seem to fall short? Am I incorrect?

Oh, and those "false statements" that have wounded you so--that was your conversation with someone else. Here's a hint: if you want to play the martyr about me not knowing your entire posting history, you may want to at least be clear about what I've said to you in this thread. After all, "I can't imagine anyone with two brain cells to rub together not knowing" that we haven't been discussing that particular issue yet.

[iverglas]

131. how deep is the ocean?

How high is the moon?

From the preceding post:
I have given the source for Canadian rules in this regard, which I support, and the rules themselves, on quite a few occasions. Use your gold star and do a search for my name and "canlii".

I support them as far as they go -- which in some respects is not, in my opinion, far enough.

Trigger locks are too obviously inadequate, of course. They may prevent a three-year-old from shooting him/herself in the eye before anyone notices what's going on, but I doubt that they'd be much use against all those wily coyotes in the underworld who are all ready to start turning out uzis the minute the iron heel rounds up all the guns. In short: do trigger locks prevent firearms from being stolen? Well, if they come with a Klingon cloaking device, I guess so.

Would different standards apply for urban and rural areas, and even perhaps for handguns and long guns?

You're asking me hypotheticals that have no meaning to me. I speak of what is / should be where I am. I would say that the rules governing storage of long arms (of the ordinary old hunting variety) here seem to be adequate, although obviously not always complied with. Well over 1,000 firearms are apparently stolen every year in Canada, almost all from residences, and a good number of them are regular old long arms. Handguns appear to be stolen mostly from "collectors", making it a res ipsa loquitur kinda thing that they are not being stored sufficiently securely, even if they are being stored in compliance with existing regulations.

Different standards do apply to long arms in remote locations in Canada, where they are not vulnerable to theft and where they may be needed on short notice.

If you people want to let people sleep with handguns under their pillows and wander around the house in their underwear with handguns stuck in their socks, 'cause the bogeyman might break down the door, that's your business. It doesn't apply where I'm at.

What I simply can't understand is why you would not want to require that those people keep their firearms of all kinds securely stored when they are not home against at least casual illicit access, which is the kind of access usually available in home break-ins in the US. Who imagines that the most fuckwitted burglar in Tulsa doesn't go straight to the drawer of the bedside table / shoebox on the closet shelf / drawer in the household desk to look for the household handgun? Who but a complete moron and/or completely self-centred asshole would make firearms available to criminals in that way? Why would anyone object to a law requiring such people to straighten up and keep their guns away from people who want them to do bad things with?



On my screen, everything after and including
"And yes, 'you're' should be "your" . Cut & paste betrayed me."
is in a straight line and my keen sense of, and reliance on, visual organization betrayed me.

[Raskolnik]

132. That's not terribly illustrative.

What I simply can't understand is why you would not want to require that those people keep their firearms of all kinds securely stored when they are not home against at least casual illicit access, which is the kind of access usually available in home break-ins in the US.

Does that not still beg the question of what physical means would be required by law? "Securely stored" is such a subjective term, and covers such a broad range of measures that it is effectively meaningless without more specificity. Are portable gun safes sufficient? Do the keys have to be secured in a certain way? What level of cost is acceptable to impose on gun owners? Should only wealthy people be able to own firearms? These are not small issues, Iverglas, and unless you can actually answer them, simply proposing more stringent "secure storage" laws is not at all helpful.

[iverglas]

133. unless???

Am I really meant to spend the rest of the afternoon hunting up all the posts in which I have REPEATEDLY COPIED AND PASTED THE CANADIAN REGULATIONS GOVERNING FIREARM STORAGE and REPEATEDLY INDICATED MY AGREEMENT WITH THEM, AS FAR AS THEY GO?

How YOU people choose to organize firearms storage rules where YOU live is up to you. As far as I know, theft from residences in the US is not a major source of crime guns in Canada, so it (unlike the absence of rules governing private transfers and the absence of rules that would, if complied with by dealers, prevent straw purchases) doesn't affect me.

I am as concerned about the victims of violence and crime committed with stolen firearms in the US as I am about victims of violence and crime anywhere, but advocating any particular course of action to reduce the incidence of the problem is outside my bailiwick. When asked, I'll give an opinion. Y'all can do with it what you will.

A search for posts by me containing the terms canlii storage in the last year (CanLII - www.canlii.ca - is the best reference for Cdn legislation and regulations, and I use it hourly in my work) produces this:

Gun Owners - Comments on Juvenile shot by State Senator's Gun
<you are here, so it doesn't count>
Topic started by RamboLiberal on Jul-25-06 12:33 PM (132 replies)
Last modified by Raskolnik on Nov-20-06 01:11 PM

"Collector lost $40,000 in firearms"
Topic started by iverglas on Jan-08-06 07:50 PM (48 replies)
Last modified by iverglas on Nov-20-06 11:21 AM

I hate guns
Topic started by boolean on Jul-17-06 12:58 AM (203 replies)
Last modified by crazed1x on Aug-16-06 11:25 AM

Toronto - No reason to have a firearm at home, Mayor Miller says
Topic started by Township75 on Aug-18-05 10:27 AM (192 replies)
Last modified by Silverhair on Aug-23-05 08:00 PM

A few thoughts on a classic "good" gun
Topic started by Michael_Bush on May-25-05 11:11 AM (61 replies)
Last modified by benEzra on May-27-05 02:55 PM

here's a problem
Topic started by iverglas on Feb-15-05 01:49 PM (102 replies)
Last modified by IronHorseman on Apr-27-05 06:10 PM

What is "Safe Storage" IYO
Topic started by _RKBA_Dem on Apr-21-05 10:28 AM (49 replies)
Last modified by iverglas on Apr-25-05 05:01 PM

New school shooting...If only America had fewer guns....
Topic started by DoNotRefill on Dec-11-04 12:46 AM (92 replies)
Last modified by iverglas on Jan-24-05 08:18 AM

My thoughts on guns
Topic started by Magnulus on Nov-13-04 05:51 AM (75 replies)
Last modified by LinuxUser on Nov-16-04 08:37 PM

Ad campaign to combat gun crime in London, UK.
Topic started by Pert_UK on Oct-19-04 10:20 AM (58 replies)
Last modified by lalalalala on Nov-11-04 10:27 PM


Feel free to peruse. You will find links in several of those threads to the relevant regulations at CanLII, and the regs themselves copied out in more than one.



edit: I perused, and the first stop got a clean copy:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=103912&mesg_id=103935
from APRIL 2005.


(typo belatedly fixed)

[Raskolnik]

134. Sorry, Iverglas, that's just a cop-out.

You've already said that you didn't think Canadian law went far enough, and the topic of this thread (along with the overwhelming bulk of gungeon topics) pertains to U.S. FIREARMS POLICY.

Once again, "securely stored" is such a subjective term, and covers such a broad range of measures that it is effectively meaningless without more specificity. Do you think portable gun safes should be sufficient in an urban area? What level of cost is acceptable to impose on gun owners? Should only wealthy people be able to own firearms?

[iverglas]

135. tough bananas, eh?

That's called a catch-22.

I don't lay down my law for what the law should be in a foreign country ... and I'm copping out.

I do (I don't, of course) and I'm that interfering Canadian bitch telling good 'murricans what to do.

Let me know which you prefer, and I'll see whether I can oblige.


Once again, "securely stored" is such a subjective term, and covers such a broad range of measures that it is effectively meaningless without more specificity.

So is "assault". That would probably be why criminal laws tend to define it.

iverglas
Thu Apr-21-05 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. and the Canadian rules

(once more with feeling)

http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor98-209/whole.html
STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,
(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or
(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

I find (b) to be, in principle, in adequate -- a trigger lock does not protect against theft. But these are long arms, "traditional", ordinary hunting weapons, we are talking about. There isn't a lot of call for them among the criminal classes, and there are enough in circulation and they are easy enough to get hold of, that theft isn't likely a big source of a big problem.

You let me know what you're not happy 'bout now, 'k?



(formatting tweaked for ease of reading)

[Raskolnik]

136. You never tire of self-pity, do you?

I don't lay down my law for what the law should be in a foreign country ... and I'm copping out.

I do (I don't, of course) and I'm that interfering Canadian bitch telling good 'murricans what to do.

I believe this highlights a large part of our difficulties: you're talking to *me* here, Iverglas. I'm an individual. I'm not the sum total of all the other DU posters with whom you have disagreed lo these many years. I don't know every conversation you've ever had, and simply because I take issue with both the substance and tone of the overwhelming bulk of your posts does not mean I take issue with those posts for the same reasons that others may.

Let me know which you prefer, and I'll see whether I can oblige.

In case you haven't noticed, or in case you are once again confusing me with another poster, that's precisely what I've been trying to pry out of you. If you spent a little more time trying to honestly discuss a topic and a little less time playing the martyr, you might have realized that earlier.

Once again, you've suggested that you would prefer requiring *more* stringent storage legislation than currently exists in Canada, particularly for handguns. My earlier questions therefore remain.

[iverglas]

137. I simply have no clue what you want

I can't think of anything to say that I haven't already said, multiple times.

I really really don't think it is my responsibility to reiterate everything I have ever said on this subject, in technicolour detail, every time anyone asks me an open-ended question. I've reproduced what I have previously said, so that there can be no occasion for confusion or misunderstanding or misconstruction. I believe that in this thread already I have pretty clearly stated that I am:

(a) not totally happy with existing regulations for storage of non-restricted non-prohibited firearms, since they do not require that the firearm be at least some degree of inaccessible itself;

(b) not at all happy with the very fact of "collectors" and sports shooters being permitted to store handguns and other restricted/prohibited weapons in private premises (i.e. premises other than a dedicated and appropriately secured firearms storage facility not in their own home or business), regardless of the security arrangements.

I said this yesterday in post 124:

"collectors" should not be permitted to maintain their collections in residential premises or in premises that are not subject to effective 24-hour active security (not merely passive security, i.e. locks etc.).

-- a statement that was itself reproduced from a post written in January 2006.

"Collectors" and sports shooters are the only people who may legally possess handguns in Canada (other than those who require them for purposes of employment). Firearms stolen from collectors have been used in a number of homicides and other incidents of violence in the last couple of years -- including killings of people who were not in any way connected to or involved in any criminal activity.

I have said that I also think that sports shooters should be required to store their restricted firearms / handguns at the facility where they practise and compete, that being the only place where they are entitled to use the firearm at present in any event.

The individual who shot several people, killing one (and leaving many, many people's lives changed forever for the worse), at Dawson College this fall had acquired his two fancy firearms by joining an approved gun club. He then spent several months playing with them in mummy and daddy's basement rec room, taking many pics of himself with them and talking about them obsessively on the internet ... and finally taking them to town and opening fire. Who knows; maybe if he'd been prohibited from taking them away from the club where he practised, he would have just shot up a bunch of people there. I'm doubting it -- both that absent the months of obsession he would have moved on to action, and that even he would have been moron enough to start shooting people with guns in their hands.


Nobody's hobby is worth a single life, or even a single injury. People who legally possess handguns in Canada are hobbyists of one of two sorts. Not their convenience, not their choice of playtime activity, not their pride of ownership, comes ahead of anyone else's interest in staying alive and unharmed.

[Raskolnik]

138. And I've simply been asking, directly, about

(a) not totally happy with existing regulations for storage of non-restricted non-prohibited firearms, since they do not require that the firearm be at least some degree of inaccessible itself

What qualifies as "some degree" of inaccessibility? That's precisely what I've been wondering about, and precisely what you've been strenuously avoiding thus far.

What steps would that require for good 'murricans that have one or two handguns in an urban house?

[iverglas]

139. what colour is orange ...

What steps would that require for good 'murricans that have one or two handguns in an urban house?

How many times, and how many ways, shall I say this?

I can no more answer that question that I can tell you how many kicks with a boot should be delivered to your dog.

Handguns should not be in urban houses. Dogs should not be kicked.

You can disagree with one or both of those statements if you like. *I* am still not going to tell *you* how to do something that *I* think should not be done.


Besides which altogether, the statement of mine that you quoted referred really really plainly to NON-RESTRICTED, NON-PROHIBITED FIREARMS, those being terms of art that I have gone to some pains to explain. A HANDGUN is a RESTRICTED firearm, so what I said in the "(a)" you quoted has NOTHING TO DO with handguns.

The provisions I had quoted, which I find to be less stringent that I would prefer, apply to ordinary, traditional, non-automatic, non-semi-automatic, non-sawed-off, non-hand-held firearms. I do not like the provision that they can be stored any old place at all in one's home or business so long as they have a trigger lock or are disabled (and of course are unloaded). This may be a psychological barrier to casual/impulsive use by the owner or an unauthorized person, or to use by children, but it is not a barrier to theft. Likewise, a locked receptacle that can simply be picked up, carried off and tinkered or bashed open at leisure somewhere else is hardly an obstacle to firearms making their way into unauthorized hands.

But because we are talking about ordinary, traditional, non-automatic, non-semi-automatic, non-sawed-off, non-hand-held firearms, which are not in great demand for prosecuting the war on drugs or holding up convenience stores, and are in all likelihood fairly readily available to anyone who wants one, either legally or illegally, there does not seem to be a humongous problem in this regard. There is *some* problem, however, since presumably there of some of these things among the hundreds/thousands (I just saw the figure 3,000 somewhere) of firearms stolen every year in Canada, and that's a damned lot of off-the-books firearms circulating and available for use in killing, injuring or committing crimes if needed or wanted. Even just in the hands of someone who might have a hard time getting a firearms acquisition licence and is in no way connected with gangs in downtown Toronto:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2006/07/19/dagenais-court.html
-- the common or garden asshole killer of 2 RCMP members this past summer in Saskatchewan

This one was better equipped:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/21/roszko-autopsy050621.html
-- the killer of the 4 RCMP members in the spring of 2005<*> (the raving violent sexual predator cop-hater in Saskatchewan) wasn't using his trusty varmint-shooting muzzle-loader:

James Roszko died of a self-inflicted shot close to his heart after killing four RCMP officers on his Alberta farm in March, according to a copy of his autopsy report obtained by CBC News.

The 46-year-old recluse shot himself with a long-barrelled semi-automatic assault rifle, the medical examiner's report says. The gun was a prohibited weapon, which Roszko had reportedly smuggled into the country 25 years ago.

It was equipped with a flash suppressor and a telescopic lens.

RCMP said the suicidal shot was fired after Roszko was hit by gunfire from one or more of the four Mounties he ambushed on March 3 in a Quonset hut on his farm near Mayerthorpe, Alta.

Anyhow, he wasn't likely about to be letting that get stolen ...



_______

<*> details for anyone who remembers / is curious about the story:
http://www.lastlinkontheleft.com/fcalbertarcmpsuspect.html

The man at the centre of Roszko’s sexual assault charges slept with a knife under his pillow and a gun under his bed for the past 12 years. Even when he learned that Jim Roszko died during a gun battle with the Mounties, he felt he had to see the body of the man who had terrorised him before he could feel safe again. He still can't believe it took the deaths of four police officers to do it.

Heckler & Koch .308 semi-automatic assault rifle

Wishing to remain anonymous, the man is not surprised the police were outwitted and outgunned. Roszko had weapons stashed all over his sprawling, booby-trapped property. He was most proud of his HK .308 assault rifle (possibly similar to the G3KA4 model pictured left), which hung on the wall in the living room of the trailer where he lived.

I'm sure it wasn't an assault rifle ...



typo fixed

[Irreverend IX]

126. All right, I'm starting to get annoyed.

My statements were all directly paraphrased from your words in the linked thread.

Specifically, if you ask humble moi's opinion about the situation in Canada:
- "collectors" should not be permitted to own restricted or prohibited weapons (that includes handguns);
- "collectors" should not be permitted to maintain their collections in residential premises or in premises that are not subject to effective 24-hour active security (not merely passive security, i.e. locks etc.).

Ban on handguns, 24-hour active security, it's all right there.

Ah yes. "The poor" -- the many, many of them who own $40,000 worth of firearms, fraudulently secure possession of a rental unit in a subsidized housing building in Toronto, and then go away to the home they own in Florida ... knowing that those guns in the big safe in the empty apartment back in Toronto were protecting them.

I assume that your legislative goals are not specific to the case of Mike Hargreaves, and I'd bet that many stolen guns used by Canadian criminals come from collections smaller than Mike's. So tell me, how large would a gun collection have to be to qualify for 24-hour active protection if you had your way? Just one stolen pistol can do a lot of harm, after all. If small-time collectors and target shooters are allowed to possess arms without security worthy of weapons-grade plutonium, a remote chance of criminals stealing their weapons will remain.

Too bad about the lack of fast response to incidents in bad neighbourhoods where you're at, or at least according to you. Maybe you should try to get yourself some kind of functioning government.

The police will protect you, so you don't have to protect yourself. Your world sounds like a fun place to live. Does every Victory Mansion come with a free telescreen?

[iverglas]

128. and I'm about as bored as usual

Won't you make the tiniest effort to get a clue? People who spew forth about things they know nothing about usually make fools of themselves.


Ban on handguns, 24-hour active security, it's all right there.

"It" is a great big dog's breakfast concocted by you.


A. Two classes of persons are permitted to possess handguns in Canada at present, apart from those licensed to carry them for employment purposes.

(a) Sports shooters who belong to approved gun clubs, who must store the firearms in accordance with the regulations and may transport them only to and from gun clubs/ranges, in accordance with the rules governing transportation.

(b) Collectors, who must meet the regulatory requirements to qualify as collectors, comply with storage requirements, and not transport the firearms without a special permit.

It is my own position that collectors should not be permitted to possess handguns, and that it would probably be wise to require sports shooters to store their firearms at the facility where they engage in their sport.


B. It is my own position that collectors who possess restricted weapons (a term defined in Canadian law) should be required to store them in a location where there is twenty-four hour active security.


Neither of those things has thing one to do with people who possess unrestricted long arms, generally used for hunting, protection from wildlife in remote areas and pest/predator control.


I assume that your legislative goals are not specific to the case of Mike Hargreaves, and I'd bet that many stolen guns used by Canadian criminals come from collections smaller than Mike's.

"Mike" (pals, are you?) apparently had thirty-some-odd firearms in his collection.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1139785525319&call_pageid=968332188492

Who knew of gun cache?
Collector’s passion 'wasn’t a secret’
Feb. 12, 2006. 10:57 PM

... “Everybody knew he had guns,” said a police source. “He was in and out of the building all the time with weapons and ammunition.”

... Gordaneer claimed thieves had stolen 80 firearms, including 50 handguns, a collection he estimated was worth more than $500,000. He said the front door to his apartment had been jimmied on Friday and three of four storage lockers pried open.

But Peel police say Gordaneer had paperwork for only 42 missing firearms — 39 handguns and three long rifles — and they’re at a loss to explain why he claimed his collection was much larger.

... “This other stuff certainly wasn’t disclosed to investigators,” said Peel Constable Kathy Weylie. “The storage issue of these firearms remains under investigation.”

... Friday’s theft, believed to be one of the largest ever against gun collectors in Ontario, was the second major theft of weapons from firearms enthusiasts in recent weeks in Greater Toronto. On Feb. 3, 40 handguns were stolen from Ken Foster, 67, while he was in hospital.

So tell me, how large would a gun collection have to be to qualify for 24-hour active protection if you had your way?

Someone with an ordinary firearms permit may acquire as many non-restricted firearms as s/he has a yen for. (I may not think that wise, in terms of policy, but it doesn't seem to have been a source of major problems.) The only reason to have a collector licence is to be permitted to acquire handguns and other firearms that people with ordinary firearms permits are not permitted to acquire and that may only be acquired for "collecting" purposes, i.e. not for carrying or for use in any way. Quelle surprise that collectors would be targeted for theft, given as how they are the ones with the firearms that the thieves actually want and all.

edited because I'm sure someone will claim to fail to see the answer there: the answer is "one". Anyone who possesses any restricted firearm under a "collector" permit should have to comply with that requirement. Ditto sports shooters.


So that was a cute one:

Ban on handguns, 24-hour active security, it's all right there.

... it just wasn't, er, the whole truth.

[SteveM]

146. Bored. Yet, here you are in the Gungeon. My, my. (nt)

[Irreverend IX]

113. You got it.

Surely there is nothing at all that could be done to reduce the risks of such things happening.

And obviously, even if there is, it ought not to be.

Elderly people are more likely than others to be killed when crossing the street, since their failing senses can prevent them from detecting the approach of vehicles. So why don't we make it illegal for anyone over the age of 60 to walk across streets unaccompanied? Such a law would certainly save lives. But it would have a lot of undesirable side-effects and it's antithetical to the idea of a free society, so no rational person would back it.

Life in a free society involves risks. Attempting to solve every little social problem through legislative brute force is foolish and imprudent, kind of like stuffing kids with Ritalin and Prozac in response to mild mood swings. The incident with the senator's son no doubt involved multiple violations of the law, including the son transporting the firearm from his house and possibly his murder of the other boy. What other laws would you call for that would have prevented the incident? Storage of all firearms in cement-anchored safes? Keeping guns locked up is a good idea, but banning pistols kept in nightstands would make it much more difficult for people to defend themselves against home invasion.

Laws have far-reaching consequences, you see, and governments for all their power cannot stop people from doing dumb things. Does this single incident fill you with an urge to call upon the heavy hand of government and legislature? Do you use a sledgehammer to kill houseflies? Many teenagers who've grown up around guns are allowed to use their parents' pistols if they've shown themselves to be responsible, just as many 16-year-olds are allowed to borrow the family car. The latter group of kids causes a lot more deaths than the former. Maybe you should lobby for a law to raise the driving age to 21.

[iverglas]

115. oh, you're just so mixed up

Elderly people are more likely than others to be killed when crossing the street, since their failing senses can prevent them from detecting the approach of vehicles. So why don't we make it illegal for anyone over the age of 60 to walk across streets unaccompanied?

Hmm. And this would have something to do with someone doing something that leads to SOMEONE ELSE being killed? I think not.

However, you may have noticed that most places you and I may be in do have laws against jaywalking. Hmm. What a horrific interference in personal liberty, eh? Or to quote someone else, "it's antithetical to the idea of a free society, so no rational person would back it".


What other laws would you call for that would have prevented the incident?

Well, like I wuz just sayin', I wouldn't be calling for any laws in this regard. I don't live in Ohio, for starters.

I kind of suspect that the senator broke a law by allowing his 16-yr-old son to have custody of a handgun. I wonder whether the law in question is a toothless sort of thing, or is so much more often broken than obeyed, and compliance so completely unmonitored and unenforced, that it may as well not exist at all, for all the deterrent effect it might have.

Aha, there we go:

Many teenagers who've grown up around guns are allowed to use their parents' pistols if they've shown themselves to be responsible, just as many 16-year-olds are allowed to borrow the family car.

Funny how B is legal and A isn't, ain't it?

Hadn't the good senator in this tale shown himself to be responsible? He got elected to a position of responsibility. He got that big award for his gun-loving ways. Who would elect or reward an irresponsible person?? And yet, and yet.

But once again, why the fuck are you asking me what "other laws" I would call for that "would have prevented" the death of this child, WHEN I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT ANY LAW WOULD PREVENT ANYTHING, AND I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT NO LAW PREVENTS ANYTHING? Something I have of course said because of the plain fact of it: laws do not prevent things. Why do you folks enjoy rolling around in this straw so much and so frequently?

The latter group of kids causes a lot more deaths than the former. Maybe you should lobby for a law to raise the driving age to 21.

Well, where I'm at, there are laws that I'm not familiar with the details of, since I got my driver's licence quite a few years ago, but the gist is that all new drivers, including middle-aged professionals, are subject to a whole load of restrictions before becoming fully-fledged licensed drivers ... ah, here we go:

http://www.drivetest.ca/en/license/License.aspx

Service Locations


As of April 1, 1994, all new drivers applying for their first car or motorcycle licence enter Ontario's Graduated Licensing System (GLS). Graduated licensing lets new drivers get driving experience and skills gradually. The two-step licensing process takes at least 20 months to complete.

To apply for a licence, you must be at least 16 years old and pass a vision test and a test of your knowledge of the rules of the road and traffic signs. After you pass these tests, you will get a Class G1 or M1 licence and a driver information package for new drivers. You must pass two road tests to become fully licensed.

New drivers earn full driving privileges in two stages and have five years to complete the program (G1, G2 or M2) and graduate to a full licence (Class G or M).

Graduated Licensing for Automobile Drivers

Class G1

New drivers of passenger vehicles learn to drive with six important conditions with a G1 licence. A new driver must hold a G1 licence for a minimum of 12 months before attempting the G1 road test. This time can be reduced to eight months if you successfully complete an approved driver education course. Drivers earn more privileges after passing their G1 road test.

As a G1 driver, you are required to:

* maintain a zero blood alcohol level while driving;
* be accompanied by a fully licensed driver, who has at least four years driving experience, and a blood alcohol level of less than .05 per cent, in case he/she needs to take over the wheel;
* ensure the accompanying driver is the only other person in the front seat;
* ensure the number of passengers in the vehicle is limited to the number of working seat belts;
* refrain from driving on Ontario's "400-series" highways or on high speed expressways such as the Queen Elizabeth Way, Don Valley Parkway, Gardiner Expressway, E.C. Row Expressway and the Conestoga Parkway;
* refrain from driving between midnight and 5:00 a.m.

... Class G2

New drivers must hold a G2 licence for a minimum of 12 months before they can attempt the G2 road test. At this level, you have more privileges because of your driving experience. You may drive without an accompanying driver on all Ontario roads anytime. However, you are still required to:

* maintain a zero blood alcohol level while driving;
* ensure the number of passengers in the vehicle is limited to the number of working seat belts.

Our Graduated Licensing System has been a resounding success in reducing death and injury among novice drivers. Ontario research shows that new teenage drivers are almost three times more likely to be involved in a fatal or serious collision when they are carrying teenage passengers. In fact, research shows the more teenage passengers, the higher the risk.

To further protect youth on our roads, effective September 1, 2005:

* The number of young passengers that teen G2 drivers can carry will be limited from midnight to 5 a.m.
* Initially, G2 drivers 19 or under can carry only one passenger aged 19 or under.
* After the first six months, and until the G2 driver earns a full G licence or turns 20, they can carry only three passengers aged 19 or under.

These restrictions will not apply if the G2 driver is accompanied by a full "G" licensed driver (with at least four years driving experience) in the front seat, or if the passengers are immediate family members.

Thirty-one jurisdictions in Canada and the U.S. have some form of teenage passenger restrictions in effect.

Huh. Looks like some smart places ARE doing something to REDUCE THE RISKS associated with teenaged driving. Huh.

But you know, there will always be people who will just break those dumb laws, so why bother?

I'm sure I don't have a clue.

[Irreverend IX]

116. Ah, you've finally seen reason.

laws do not prevent things.

They certainly don't. In your earlier post you said "Surely there is nothing at all that could be done to reduce the risks of such things happening." If you were suggesting, rather than passing legislation, that a grassroots effort should be made to promote a stronger culture of gun safety, I agree with you 100%. I'm still not clear what your objective in posting in this thread was. Was it to point out that the state senator, who publicly promoted gun safety, was guilty of slovenly weapon handling in private and may have raised a murderer to boot? What do you expect? He's from the party of Mark Foley and Ted Haggard, and he speaks for the (at most) couple thousand people who bother to vote for state senators in his little corner of Pennsylvania. The behavior of random podunk Republicans does not reflect on the safety practices of the majority of gun owners. There are more than 200 million privately held guns in the US, and most of those have never been used to kill someone.

[iverglas]

110. additional details

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_480024.html

State Sen. Robert Regola III and his son knew a 14-year-old neighbor was dead from a bullet fired from the senator's gun before police told them anything about the case, according to court papers made public Wednesday.

... Later that day, police interviewed the senator, who "made the statement that he knows the gun was his and that he feels bad and can't believe Lou shot himself," said Trooper John Zalich in the affidavit. "At no point during the investigation was (the senator) told that the gun used in the shooting was his nor was the weapon described to him in any manner," Zalich wrote.

... George Nickoloff, a neighbor, said Ron Regola <brother of Sen. Regola> talked to him about the missing gun and expressed regret about not calling police. Nickoloff told troopers "he was wondering how Ron Regola knew the missing gun from the house was the same gun that caused the gunshot wound to the victim," the affidavit said.

[iverglas]

129. more fun with Bob and Bobby

I know how eagerly the assembled masses await the details.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/10338901/detail.html

According to documents released on Thursday, a computer and a safe were taken from the home. Inside the safe, investigators found three bottles of Crown Royal, a pair of brass knuckles, three computer discs and 10 sheets of pornographic material.

The search warrant listed the following items police were searching for in Regola's home:

- Clothing containing blood, including shoes
- Philly blunt cigars
- Winchester 9 mm shells
- Computer discs, drives and optical storage devices
- All computer hardware, including but not limited to any equipment that can collect, analyze, create, display, convert, store, conceal or transmit electronic, magnetic, optical or similar computer impulses or data.

Are brass knuckles prohibited weapons or some such in Pennsylvania?

Why on earth would a state senator have brass knuckles in a safe?

Maybe the safe belonged to "young Bobby". Or maybe the senator thought it wise to lock up his expensive booze and private perversions away from the kiddies, but a good idea to let sonny play with the guns ...

[iverglas]

140. Inquest Set in Death by Lawmaker's Gun

The news makes the big time. Somebody finds it interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000384.html

Monday, November 20, 2006; 1:07 PM

PITTSBURGH -- A coroner said Monday he will conduct a formal inquest to determine how a 14-year-old boy wound up dead behind a state senator's house with the lawmaker's gun at his side.

Authorities concluded Louis Farrell, a next-door neighbor of state Sen. Robert Regola, died of a single gunshot wound to the head, but investigators haven't determined whether the boy shot himself or was shot by someone else.

... After the inquest, expected in January, Bacha can make a nonbinding recommendation that authorities file charges, if warranted.

... Both the legislator and his son gave statements on the day Farrell's body was found, but since then, state police and Westmoreland County District Attorney John Peck said the Regolas' attorneys have refuse to let them be re-interviewed without advance notice of the questions.

Looks like about the only way to get the buggers to talk ... or respectfully decline to talk because to do so might incriminate them ...

[iverglas]

141. Sen. Regola's Son Called To Coroner's Inquest

http://www.wpxi.com/news/10364381/detail.html

The non-jury inquest will begin in January.

Until then, state police will work to tie up what they call loose ends in the investigation.

[krispos42]

142. Update: Regola charged with perjury over gun used in suicide

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

By Michael A. Fuoco and Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Criminal charges were filed today against state Sen. Robert Regola in connection with the death of a teenage neighbor who was shot with the senator's gun.

The Westmoreland County coroner ruled that Louis Farrell, 14, committed suicide in July. He was found behind his home in Hempfield; a gun belonging to the senator was near the body.

After a lengthy inquest before attorney Thomas Farrell, who presided, Mr. Farrell suggested the senator wasn't being totally forthcoming about the presence of the gun in his home. Mr. Farrell is not related to the victim.

Today, state police filed charges that support that conclusion. Mr. Regola is accused of three counts of perjury, allowing possession of a firearm by a minor, recklessly endangering another person and false swearing.

Troopers allege in court papers and testified at the inquest that Mr. Regola told them the gun had been kept in his son Bobby's room for a time. But Mr. Regola testified at the inquest that his son did not have access to the gun.

That was contradicted by the testimony of one of Bobby's friends, who said he saw the gun in Bobby's room.

State police said Mr. Regola endangered Louis by keeping a loaded gun to which his son had access and knowing that Louis had a key to the home, which he used when he cared for the Regolas' dogs.

<more>

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07086/772890-100.stm

Another lying Republican arrested for perjury. :woohoo:

[Wickerman]

143. no glee in this, Krispos

There's a dead kid, a gun owner who didn't store his weapon responsibly. I'm pleased they are going to try him for his negligence, and lying, but celebrating in this case seems a tad over the top. I admit I'm glad he's not a Dem but I am more pained that he belongs to the human race.

[krispos42]

144. I am happy justice is being served

I am not happy that conditions that require it be served in the first place happened.

[SteveM]

147. In a sea of a certain Canadian's usual "top over", I hadn't noticed (nt)

[krispos42]

145. kick n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. I haven't seen many trigger locks a 14 year old couldn't remove.

A gun safe would have probably been the only means to truly prevent a 14 year old from obtaining this weapon.

David