Seattle Folk Life Festival shooting

[uppityperson]

For those who don't know, Folk Life is a large outdoor/indoor mostly free music/dance/culture thing that happens at the Seattle Center (where Worlds Fair was, Space Needle is) Memorial Day weekend.

A fool got into an argument with another man, whipped his glock out of his ankle holster to pistol whip another guy, and ended up with at least 2 people getting shot, looks like by accident.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004438622_folklife26m.html

Sarah Thorsnes was fresh with the glow of her pending graduation from the University of Washington as she, her boyfriend and their puppy sat down near Seattle Center's International Fountain on a warm Saturday evening to take in the Northwest Folklife Festival. Then, in a flash: Two men grappled with each other, stumbled through the crowd and crashed into the couple. There was a crack of gunfire and Thorsnes' puppy bolted. Thorsnes gave chase.

Then she looked down to see a hole in her jeans — and a lot of her own blood. "I didn't feel the pain until I was on the ground," said Thorsnes, 21. A stray bullet apparently fired during the fight between the two men Saturday evening pierced the forearm of Thorsnes' boyfriend, Joshua Penaluna, before lodging in her right thigh.

(clip)
The shooting was the first incident of serious violence in the festival's 37-year history, said Rob Townsend, Folklife's executive director. About 250,000 people are expected to attend over the holiday weekend.

[zanne]

1. And people wonder why I'm against concealed carry. nt

[uppityperson]

3. To be fair, so to speak, I have friends who carry concealed.

This guy was a fool, and should not have been allowed to do so, if he had a legal concealed weapons permit. Shooting by accident when you mean to just hit someone with your gun doesn't inspire confidence.

[zanne]

4. I feel unsafe when I know there are concealed weapons.

If I can see somebody with a weapon, I know to stay far away. The Second Amendment is all well and fine, but I have a right to be safe.

[slackmaster]

9. Maybe you can get an occupational hypnotherapist to make you forget about them

Then you will be able to feel safe.

The Second Amendment is all well and fine, but I have a right to be safe.

Yes, you do have a right to BE safe.

You do not have a right to FEEL any particular way.

[uppityperson]

13. I don't think there is anything about a Right to Be safe.

If there was something in the constitution about that, that would be wild, considering how unsafe life is. If you mean the interpretation of 2nd amendment that you have a right to be armed, that still isn't a Right to Be Safe.

[zanne]

16. OK then. I'll get raving drunk and start driving around.

How about I go on a bus with a tank of oxygen and light up a cigarette? Your post was ridiculous. Laws are made for the safety of the public.

[uppityperson]

17. Thanks for the kind words and understanding.

Of course laws are made for public safety, but there is nothing in the Constitution I know of as an absolute right to be safe since things happen and safety can be not guaranteed. We work towards being safe, but no way is it a guarantee or absolute right.

[zanne]

18. You know your argument doesn 't make sense.

But I also know you'll never admit it. Even though we are a "nation of laws". That, to me, easily translates into "You have a right not to be injured or killed by complete idiots". But hey...that's just me.

[uppityperson]

33. to me the laws say "we are going to try and keep you safe" which is different from

"you have a right to BE safe". Slight difference, but that is how I see it.

"I also know you'll never admit it."? Mind reader?

[iverglas]

21. I don't think anyone mentioned any guarantees

To pretend that it is not the function of the state / the government to promote public safety would be ludicrous, and I'm sure you're not doing that.

The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's what we people do when we get together and form things like states. We make and enforce rules to deter individuals from harming and even endangering other individals, and to promote public safety.

And public safety really does trump individual liberty to do what one pleases much of the time. If it didn't, we would have no speed limits.

[uppityperson]

34. I agree with you and no, I'm not doing that.

Just seeing the bit of difference between a Right to Be Safe and promoting public safety. I agree with what you write here.

[iverglas]

37. in modern rights instruments

(like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian constitution, and others modeled on it), there is a recognized right to security of the person.

This is the same kind of "negative" right as the right to life and liberty, the historic first generation of rights in the progression from liberté to égalité and some day fraternité (solidarity).

It means that the state may not deprive an individual of life, security of the person or liberty without the procedural guarantees imposed.

More broadly, however, modern societies understand these "rights" as values: things to be promoted and protected by the state, i.e. individuals' life, security of the person and liberty.

Certainly states have always done that by making criminal laws, prohibiting assault, for instance. And also by making regulatory laws, such as laws imposing speed limits, laws prohibiting unqualified persons from practising medicine, and so on: laws that regulate individual conduct with the aim of promoting public safety (among other things).

The state cannot be required to guarantee any outcome, obviously; an individual's right to safety/security doesn't mean a corresponding duty on the state to guarantee that safety/security. Just as the right to life doesn't place a duty on the state to supply free food and housing for life. But the state does have a responsibility, in our understanding of what the purpose of a state/government is, to take measures to protect individuals and the public against negative outcomes.

[rdenney]

22. The shooter was using his "civil rights" to "protect" himself, right?

I hope these two innocent people sue the hell out of this bastard...while he spends plenty of time in prison.

[maxidivine]

25. We agree!

People like him are the last people I want to see when I go to the range or when I (eventually) have to go renew my CCW permit. They are NOT representative of anything vaguely resembling a significant portion of firearms owners. He will go to jail, and hopefully be there for many, many years. Unless some jackoff parole board lets him out while he still has years left in his sentence, though it wouldn't surprise me if that did happen.

[cephalexin]

42. Oxygen is not flammable.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

43. and yet ... no one said it was

:rofl:

[cephalexin]

44. Didn't Bushco teach us about implication? But I sincerely hope the person does

what he described.
:rofl:

[iverglas]

45. how dreadfully interesting

You make a point of the fact that oxygen itself is not flammable ... and then hope that another member of DU lights a cigarette in the presence of an oxygen supply, in a crowd of people.

Hmm. Implication. What might it be?

You know full well that lighting a cigarette in the presence of an oxygen supply is unwise and can in fact lead to death, and you sincerely hope that another member of DU does it.

There seem to be implications enough to choke the proverbial horse here.

Then of course there is the obvious inference from the pronoun you chose for referring to the other member of DU ...

[cephalexin]

46. The one who proposed getting raving drunk and driving?

Yes, I suppose that would be the one. And you are confusing implication with inference as well. Perhaps you can explain to me how one would smoke a cigarette without lighting it in the presence of an oxygen supply. That will be an interesting treatise on chemical reactions. :D

[iverglas]

48. the implications just get obviouser

This is what was said:

How about I go on a bus with a tank of oxygen and light up a cigarette?

Why are you asking:

Perhaps you can explain to me how one would smoke a cigarette without lighting it in the presence of an oxygen supply.

?

Who said something about smoking a cigarette without lighting it? The expression "light up" is precisely what was used.


And you are confusing implication with inference as well.

Noooo, I don't think so. I think the implication of saying that one hopes that someone lights up a cigarette in the presence of an oxygen supply is pretty clear.

I also think I don't have to do much inferring when it comes to your choice of pronoun, of course.

[maxidivine]

51. use magnesium

that'll do it

[Howzit]

69. No, but it makes other things more flammable

Apollo One burst into flames because of the pure oxygen environment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. Is there a law against carrying oxygen on a bus?

Which law are you specifically talking about?

David

[zanne]

15. Then I'll just exchange the "feel safe" for "be safe".

Is that okay with you, Slackmaster?

[slackmaster]

29. Concealed-weapons permit holders do not make you less safe

So there.

[iverglas]

31. given up, have you?

What might be your basis for saying that the carrier of a concealed firearm at the Folklife festival in Seattle did not make EVERYBODY there less safe, but specifically did not make the people he shot less safe?

Forget "safe". Try "not bleeding".


punctuated for clarity.

[uppityperson]

35. This one did.

[slackmaster]

38. My comment was directed at zanne

How did that person make zanne less safe?

[uppityperson]

39. 2 possibilities. Zanne was at FolkLifeFest, or I took you as speaking royal "you"

Don't know if Zanne was there, but I did that that "you" as being the all inclusive royal "you". That is all.

[avenger64]

87. good one, m8..

..N/T

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Is it just a feeling you get or do you have a nose like a bloodhound?

With your ability to detect concealed weapons, I would think the TSA would find a good job for you.

David

[cephalexin]

7. It's 99% probably he wasn't carrying it legally.

The article would surely have said so if he had a permit.

[uppityperson]

11. This article says he was.

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_052608WAB_folklife_shooting_monday_SW.310239db.html

Prosecutors called the defendant a danger to the community, adding that he has substance abuse and mental health issues.

The man's father came to his defense, saying the 22-year old is generally a good kid and not a fighter.
(clip)

Police say the suspect actually has a concealed weapons permit and was carrying the gun in an ankle holster.

He's facing three counts of assault with a deadly weapon.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. If he had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues that the court was aware of,

then how did he buy a handgun or get a concealed carry permit? Regardless he belongs in jail which is where he should be.

David

[uppityperson]

62. Updated below, these are good questions since he did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173715&mesg_id=173854

[cephalexin]

40. Okay I see but the article from the first post did not mention that.

They need to keep a closer eye on applicants.

[iverglas]

12. so are you giving 99-1 odds?

I'll take you up on it. I'll wager $1 million that he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Now, no fair cheating ... like going to google news and searching for Seattle Folklife or something ...

[maxidivine]

26. He had a permit,

but depending on Washington law he might have still been carrying in a restricted area, I don't know Washington laws and regulations or anything about folklife but various states have restrictions on carrying in an area where alcohol is licensed to be consumed, or from public gatherings, there are a variety of odd little laws from state to state. Regardless I'm glad no one died and I hope the victims of his idiocy do not suffer any lasting health effects, and that he rots in a cell for thinking his Glock was a club.

[iverglas]

36. got google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Washington

Prohibited areas for firearms are contained in RCW 9.41.300, RCW 9.41.280, and RCW 70.108.150.


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.300

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.280

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.108.150

It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport or convey, or to have in his possession or under his control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.

A misdemeanour and a $100 fine. Now that's tough love.

Now you'll just have to straighten out the person I was addressing, who said:

cephalexin (8 posts)
Thu May-29-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. It's 99% probably he wasn't carrying it legally.
The article would surely have said so if he had a permit.

Had a permit (which is what I said), broke the law.

Huh. I wonder how that could possibly have happened. The holder of a permit to carry a concealed firearm breaking the law?? Oh ... and shooting three people ...

[maxidivine]

52. nope, got iverglas!

So on top of his monumental lack of judgement in getting into an altercation while carrying (and concealed carriers have a duty to avoid those whenever possible, just like all adults should, but more so) and his monumental lack of judgement in using his pistol as a club, he was also carrying into a prohibited area. good riddance to him, I hope the victim with the nasal hit isn't permanently disfigured, that the victim hit in the wrist doesn't lose any function of his hand, and the victim hit in the thigh recovers quickly with no tendon damage or other lasting impact.

[iverglas]

53. got delusions, I'd say

The holder of a permit to carry a concealed firearm broke several laws, including the law governing his permit, and shot several people.

And somehow, that's a gotcha on me.

Hmm.

[maxidivine]

55. lighten up Francis!

I was making a funny on your "got google?" funny.

not a 'gotcha' on you at all.

You seem a little combative today.

[iverglas]

56. there's only one person around here

who could get iverglas, and that's Wickerman. But he just keeps ignoring me.

The other one ... well ... let's just say it looks like you're back in the running, Fire Medic Dave. I think I'm going to have to set a reserve bid ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Always glad to be considered.

I realize I'm a longshot like Hillary but maybe the superdelegates will come through for me.


DAvid

[maxidivine]

67. Again, I'm not trying to "get" you

[iverglas]

68. well for sure

you didn't get me. ;)


But you still could, you never know. All offers considered, but regret can only reply to those invited for interview ...

[cephalexin]

41. I see now that he did but it was not mentioned in the first post's article.

I agree he should not have had it.

[maxidivine]

24. Damn hollywood, guns are not clubs! nt

[slackmaster]

8. I'm against unlawful concealed carry too

:hi:

[iverglas]

14. ah

But since the firearm in this case was being carried by the holder of a concealed carry permit, i.e. the "concealed carry" was by definition not "unlawful", then you were all for it.


... typo ...

[slackmaster]

30. Assumes facts not in evidence

We do not know that the particular venue allowed for lawful carry, even with a permit.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. We do now thanks to Iverglas and google.

It shall be unlawful for any person, except law enforcement officers, to carry, transport or convey, or to have in his possession or under his control any firearm while on the site of an outdoor music festival.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days or by both such fine and imprisonment.


David

[gorfle]

49. Yes, we do wonder.

And people wonder why I'm against concealed carry. nt

Actually, yes, I do wonder. It's been shown that revocation of CCW permits is absurdly low. It's also been shown that CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to commit crimes than non-CCW permit holders.

OK, so we have one anecdotal example of a CCW permit holder who went nuts.

The vast majority of CCW permit holders do not commit crimes with their firearms, and they are far far less likely to do so than the rest of the population.

[burythehatchet]

2. Guns don't kill people

folk festivals kill people

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. Who died?

[TomInTib]

5. He pulled his pistol to hit the guy?

What a dumbass.

He's lucky he didn't get his head kicked in when he went to the ankle holster.

The other guy must've been really slow.

[uppityperson]

6. He was a fool in several ways.

He got tackled by some Folk Life participants you yelled at him a bunch about it being a peaceful event and he had no right to f* it up for everyone.

[iverglas]

10. jeez, I wish I'd thought of that

Most of Arlo Guthrie's performance at the local folk fest a few years ago was ruined for me by the drunk sitting behind me (a non-paying audience member on the other side of the fence) "singing" alogng with Arlo.

Why, if I'd had my Glock in my garter, I could have whipped it out and beat him over the head with it.

Of course, I could have grabbed a pot from the craft vendors nearby and smashed that over his head, too. I didn't, but if I had, I wouldn't likely have managed to injure two other people in the process. (Sounds like the woman was lucky; blood loss from a leg wound can be rapidly fatal.) Oh wait -- it was three people.

Who in the name of fucking hell TAKES A FIREARM TO A FOLK FESTIVAL???


http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_052608WAB_folklife_shooting_monday_SW.310239db.html

06:10 PM PDT on Monday, May 26, 2008

SEATTLE - Bail was set at $350,000 for a Snohomish man accused of shooting two people during a fight at Seattle's Folk Life Festival on Saturday.

... Prosecutors called the defendant a danger to the community, adding that he has substance abuse and mental health issues.

The man's father came to his defense, saying the 22-year old is generally a good kid and not a fighter.

... Police say the suspect actually has a concealed weapons permit and was carrying the gun in an ankle holster.

Myself, I wouldn't give a crap whose friend the person with the permit to carry the fucking firearm was. If *I* don't know them, I don't want them at the folk festival where I am.

And nobody I would know or ever want to know would ever consider wearing a fucking firearm ANYWHERE, let alone a folk festival.


Amazing, though. Asshole with permit to carry concealed firearm uses it in a crowd of people and injures his target and two bystanders, and it was all ended without some "hero" whipping out a pistol and shooting ...

[SteveM]

23. How many CCW's have committed gun crimes, now? Have that number? (nt)

[iverglas]

27. how do you know which ones are going to, now?

Have that crystal ball?

That's all I ask. It really isn't too much.

[SteveM]

28. So you don't know, eh? With gunguys, et al, you should know. (nt)

[iverglas]

32. jeez, that was even sadder than the slackmaster's latest effort

[SteveM]

50. My goof: I asked a clear question and expected an answer (nt)

[Duke Newcombe]

95. Let's bring "Minority Report" to life.

That'll make everyone happy--precrime and all.

Duke

[krispos42]

54. "Who in the name of fucking hell TAKES A FIREARM TO A FOLK FESTIVAL???"

That is probably the wrong train of thought being used. If he carried regularly, then he's probably thinking "I'm going out so let me get my gun", in a similar fashion to a wallet or chapstick.

[iverglas]

57. oh well then! so let me ask:

who in the name of fucking hell THINKS A FIREARM IS LIKE A WALLET OR CHAPSTICK?

A seriously fucked up person living in a seriously fucked up society is the answer, in case you were still puzzling over it.

[krispos42]

58. Thank you for your opinion

n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. This would be meaningless anecdote.

At least according to the gun grabbers here.

David

[Redneck Socialist]

47. By Accident?

The article doesn't really give much in the way of details, but at the very least (based on what little we know) the shooter is a major dumbass. He pulled a gun in the middle of a crowd and fired it. What happened wasn't an accident it was criminal stupidity.

[uppityperson]

59. UPDATE, mental health history, on RX for schizophrenia, with CCW permit.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004447192_folklifeshooter30m.html

A 22-year-old Snohomish man was charged Thursday with one count of second-degree assault after a gunshot wounded three people at the Northwest Folklife Festival in Seattle last weekend. Prosecutors say Clinton Chad Grainger, a housepainter with a history of drug addiction and schizophrenia, intentionally injured Henry Morris, Sarah Thorsnes and Josh Penaluna.

(clip part of what happened)

Grainger is being held on $350,000 bail. He has a history of anxiety and schizophrenia, according to court documents, and has been on methadone for drug addiction since he was 18. Grainger obtained a concealed-weapons permit from the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office, which does a criminal records check before granting permits.

State rules on concealed-weapons permits and federal guidelines on who can possess a gun address mental illness. The state concealed-weapons rules ask whether the applicant has been confined in a mental-health facility for more than 14 days for treatment or committed as criminally insane. Even if an applicant answers "yes," there is an opportunity to explain the circumstances or provide evidence of rehabilitation. The federal guidelines ban anyone who is addicted to drugs or is "of unsound mind" from possessing a gun...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_festival_shooting.html

The man arrested in a shooting at the Northwest Folklife Festival in Seattle has a license to carry a pistol and takes medicine for mental problems.

The 22-year-old Snohomish man, Clinton Chad Grainger, is jailed in Seattle for investigation of assault. Three people were wounded Saturday when Grainger's gun fired as he was scuffling with another man at the Seattle Center.

Information at his bail hearing Monday disclosed Grainger takes medication for anxiety and schizophrenia and has been in a methadone maintenance program.

The Snohomish County sheriff's office says Grainger was issued a concealed weapons permit in January 2007. Capt. Kevin Prentiss says when people apply for a concealed gun permit they are asked to disclose serious mental health problems.

[maxidivine]

66. So what have we learned?

I'd say we learned that this is another failure of state agencies and the medical community to keep their records updated.

[iverglas]

70. where did we learn that?

What records did a state agency or medical professional/institution, or court, fail to update / submit that it should have, that would have established that this individual was disqualified from having a permit?

The ridiculous thing is that I'm not seeing anything that would have disqualified him from having a firearm -- i.e. that would have shown up as a disqualifying factor on a standard firearms purchase background check. He doesn't appear to have had a criminal record or to meet the mental health disqualifying criteria.

Since he had no compunctions about wearing his firearm to a place where his permit did not allow, I doubt he'd have had any about wearing a firearm without a permit.

And of course, even if there were something that would have actively disqualified him from obtaining a concealed weapon permit or purchasing a firearm, all he would have needed to do was read the classifieds or go to a gun show, and voilà, he would have had a handgun in his sock all the same and could have taken it anywhere he wanted.

Just like any other criminal / nutbar / druggie.

All that reports like this do is point out how ridiculous it is to allow anyone to wander around in public with guns in their socks. Obviously, there is no way of knowing whether someone applying for a permit is a good risk for carrying a firearm in public, let alone what anyone with a firearm in his/her sock, or undies, or Gucci handbag, is going to decide to do with it.

[maxidivine]

71. Methadone treatment=Drug addict=prohibited person

from even buying a firearm, not clear on their legal status as far as owning one though.
likewise

Schizophrenia=known mental/personality/what have you disorder=prohibted person

Some doctors are not doing their jobs in his area. Those are things that should have been reported to the NICS in order to prevent him from getting a concealed carry permit and buying guns from shops.

[iverglas]

72. well I'm confused

You said:

I'd say we learned that this is another failure of state agencies and the medical community to keep their records updated.

Here's what was reported in a news item quoted earlier:

State rules on concealed-weapons permits and federal guidelines on who can possess a gun address mental illness. The state concealed-weapons rules ask whether the applicant has been confined in a mental-health facility for more than 14 days for treatment or committed as criminally insane. Even if an applicant answers "yes," there is an opportunity to explain the circumstances or provide evidence of rehabilitation. The federal guidelines ban anyone who is addicted to drugs or is "of unsound mind" from possessing a gun...

NICS, as I understand it, should contain info about (a) criminal convictions, (b) restraining orders, (c) adjudications of mental incompetence, and (d) committals to a psychiatric institution for dangerousness (to the person's self or others).

Here we go. The FBI also says -- in relation to firearms purchases:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsindex.htm

5) Persons who are unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance

Criteria for Entry

The Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, and state law enforcement have the authority to enter and update records on persons who have been unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance.

Do we know that "state law enforcement" had that information? As between doctor and patient, unless there is a mandatory reporting provision, it's privileged information. (There may well be some sort of mandatory reporting to somewhere for methadone programs, but to NICS?)

I would think that the same would be very definitely true of treatment for schizophrenia. That is privileged information. I know that if I wanted my doctor telling the world and its dog that I was being treated for schizophrenia, I'd be sure to let her know.

And there's that hole. If you have a psychosis and are vulnerable to delusions to which you respond with violence, but have never been committed to an institution, you're not in the NICS system.

And we know my position on that: anyone wishing to acquire a firearm should perhaps be required to furnish a medical report showing that s/he does not have such a disqualifying condition, but no one's medical records should be released to a government agency (like your NICS system) for purposes that have nothing to do with his/her own interests, i.e. in the case of a person who never in his/her life wishes to acquire a firearm. That is quite simply an appalling breach of privacy.

The thing is, in this case, that he doesn't seem to fall within the mental health reporting requirement in the NICS system:

3) Persons who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or have been committed to a mental institution

He was just asked a question on a form, about which he apparently chose to lie -- or possibly, although not very probably, told the truth with an explanation and it was accepted.

Oh, pardon me -- I would guess that the authority responsible for issuing the permit IS NOT ALLOWED to access the NICS system for that purpose. Would that be right?

Ask 'em a few questions, give 'em the permit to carry a concealed weapon, and if they aren't eligible to purchase one, well, there are always gun shows and the classifieds.


You know how you folks don't want George Dubya Bush's government being in charge of something like a firearms registry? and how that's one of the big arguments against it -- big bad gumming not gonna get my name?

Well imagine how some other folks feel about the keystone-cop arrangement for issuing concealed firearms permits that this looks like. Big dumb gummint not gonna send people with guns out onto their streets, I think might be what they're thinking.

[slackmaster]

76. I believe "addicted to any controlled substance" applies to lawful methadone addicts

:shrug:

[iverglas]

77. yes ... so I'll say it again

The item quoted says that LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies are required to report this info.

What if a law enforcement agency knows nothing about it?

A person can be in a methadone program and have had nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

So it was up to him to answer the addiction question truthfully.

And fuckin DUH, he lied.

And this is what the safety of the public depends on?? Truthfulness on the part of an addict in a methadone program suffering from a delusional illness???

[slackmaster]

78. Sounds like a deficiency in state processes for reporting disqualifying events to the feds

It's definitely a problem, and it's on the state level. If the information has to go through a state LE agency, so be it.

A person can be in a methadone program and have had nothing to do with the criminal justice system

That kind of thing should be communicated to police, just like restraining orders are.

Yes he lied, and the NICS check should have been able to catch it.

[iverglas]

80. so I'll ask again

Yes he lied, and the NICS check should have been able to catch it.

Does the authority that processes the application for a permit to carry a concealed firearm have access to the NICS system?

My understanding was not, but I don't know.

The NICS system, as I understand it, would have caught his lie only if

(a) he attempted to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer

and

(b) there is some requirement within the NICS system requiring that anyone who has been treated for substance abuse be reported to the system.

Again, I don't understand (b) to be the case.

That kind of thing should be communicated to police, just like restraining orders are.

And again, I would be appalled if it were, just as I would be appalled if treatment for a delusional illness had to be reported to that system.

And again, I find the total lack of concern about the violation of medical privacy that such reporting constitutes, on the part of people who could not be faster on the draw when it comes to their own privacy and personal information, to be extremely telling.

[slackmaster]

81. I don't know about the state of Washington...

Does the authority that processes the application for a permit to carry a concealed firearm have access to the NICS system?

In California the LE agencies do - Background checks are all processed through the state Department of Justice, which has access to NICS.

As I said, a procedural issue THAT CAN BE FIXED without any Earth-shaking change in the law.

Why shouldn't someone who is being treated for substance abuse, in a manner that disqualifies him or her from possessing a firearm under federal law, be reported to NICS?

And again, I find the total lack of concern about the violation of medical privacy that such reporting constitutes, on the part of people who could not be faster on the draw when it comes to their own privacy and personal information, to be extremely telling.

Hold your horses iverglas. Access to NICS data is very tightly controlled, to the extent that even records of checks have to be discarded. When a person is flagged as disqualified, the querying gun dealer or agency IS NOT INFORMED of the specific reason. That comes up only if the person attempting to acquire a gun appeals the denial.

The law lays out a finite set of criteria that disqualify a person from having a gun. Obviously it can't be anywhere near 100% effective if ALL disqualifying events are not reported.

[beevul]

73. What would you say...

"All that reports like this do is point out how ridiculous it is to allow anyone to wander around in public with guns in their socks."

What would you say about that, to the people on your side of this issue that in essence claim a few examples are meaningless?




"Obviously, there is no way of knowing whether someone applying for a permit is a good risk for carrying a firearm in public..."


Beyond that persons track record, your absolutely right. The same way as there is no way of knowing whether someone applying for a permit (license) is a good risk to drive a vehicle in public. So what?




"...let alone what anyone with a firearm in his/her sock, or undies, or Gucci handbag, is going to decide to do with it."


Beyond a persons track record, again, your absolutely right. There is no way of knowing for sure, what anyone that owns anything that can be misused will do with any particular thing whether it be a small and/or concealable on ones person type thing thing, or something as large as an automobile that may blend in with hundreds of automobiles in any city or that can be concealed in a garage. Whats your point?

Lots of things can be and are misused, some with an associated and accompanying loss of life, and which can be concealed on ones person.

What would you suggest be done about things that fall into that category?

[iverglas]

74. what I'd actually strongly suggest

is that a lot of people stop the silly game of "a gun is like a swimming pool". In your case, "a gun is like a car" for the purposes of the particular discussion.

People do not carry guns around in their socks in order to get the groceries in. And people do not WANT to carry guns around in their socks in order to get the kids to hockey practice. And thousands upon thousand of people a year do not die because someone AIMED A VEHICLE at them and fired it.

That's what I'd suggest.

[beevul]

75. you didn't answer the question i asked.

Lots of things can be and are misused, some with an associated and accompanying loss of life, and which can be concealed on ones person.

What would you suggest be done about things that fall into that category?

On edit: and this question too:

What would you say about that, to the people on your side of this issue that in essence claim a few examples are meaningless?

[iverglas]

79. how about this

What would you say about that, to the people on your side of this issue that in essence claim a few examples are meaningless?

What would you say to someone who raised Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of the evils of nuclear weapons?

Two examples are meaningless?


They are examples of DIFFERENT THINGS.

One set is examples of problems caused by people who have firearms in public.

Your set is examples of problems allegedly solved by people who have firearms in public. The damned thing is that the problem they are usually solving is A PROBLEM CAUSED BY A PERSON WHO HAS FIREARMS IN PUBLIC. Many rational people of goodwill think it is advisable to prevent problems like that, rather than employ risky measures to try to solve them when they arise.


Lots of things can be and are misused, some with an associated and accompanying loss of life, and which can be concealed on ones person.
What would you suggest be done about things that fall into that category?

I think you can go back to my previous post and guess.

We don't give out permits to carry concealed daggers around in public where I'm at, either.

[beevul]

82. How about not.

"Lots of things can be and are misused, some with an associated and accompanying loss of life, and which can be concealed on ones person."

"What would you suggest be done about things that fall into that category?"


"I think you can go back to my previous post and guess."

And be accused of saying you said or implied something you didn't? No. I think I'd rather see you address that specific question, like anyone else that claimed to be

interested in discourse would.

[uppityperson]

84. How is a gun like a swimming pool? I missed those posts.

I know you are not saying a gun is like a swimming pool but saying that people say it is, wondering where?

[iverglas]

86. google says ...

site:www.democraticunderground.com guns "swimming pools"

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+guns+%22swimming+pools%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Results 1 - 30 of about 1,230 from www.democraticunderground.com for guns "swimming pools"


It's the constant refrain.

[uppityperson]

89. Looks like lots of matches, was hoping for just a simple explanation.

Thanks anyways.

[iverglas]

91. you'd probably do better

asking someone who asserts the moronic analogy, or the one with cars, or staircases, or cancer, etc. etc.

Swimming pools are something present in some homes. Some children die by drowning in swimming pools. I don't doubt that swimming pools could be better regulated than they are. (Where I'm at, regulation is generally a matter of municipal by-laws, and they tend to have fairly strict requirements about fencing, locked gates, etc.)

People hereabouts have very funny notions about analogies. Many of them reject reasonable analogies on specious grounds, and many construct specious analogies and pretend to think they're reasonable.

[pipoman]

88. The point has been made

by me and others, when people want to drift off into the need for gun restrictions because of the incidents of children dying from "gun violence". The point I and others have made is that far more children between 0-14 die each year the result of drowning many of which occur in private swimming pools, yet no call from those so concerned about the death of children for swimming pool restrictions or bans. I think those who claim their interest in promoting gun control "because of the children" are being disingenuous.

[uppityperson]

90. Thank you.

That is what I figured, but wanted to check and not assume I knew squat. I wonder if the statistics have been run as to length of exposure to pools and deaths related to them, and the same for guns, since you know that old saying about statistics.

Sort of like most car accidents happen within 5 miles of home so you need to be most cautious then and when you get over 5 miles away you can relax. Which is what I thought as a child when I heard this, would keep checking on road trips and my folks finally asked why and laughed at me.

[iverglas]

92. an interesting point

I wonder if the statistics have been run as to length of exposure to pools and deaths related to them, and the same for guns

In fact, it's the very first question I raised in my very first post in this forum many years ago. In that case, the specious analogy being offered was staircases, and the dangers thereof.

There are a host of other factors that make the purported analogies specious.

[iverglas]

93. is that a point ... or an unfounded allegation?

The point I and others have made is that far more children between 0-14 die each year the result of drowning many of which occur in private swimming pools, yet no call from those so concerned about the death of children for swimming pool restrictions or bans.

Is this the Swimming Pools forum of DU? Is there one?

What do you know about the positions anyone here takes on "swimming pool restrictions or bans"?

I'd like to put up a bigger pool in my back yard than the 9-foot by 36-inch one I've used to splash in on hot days for a couple of years. If I did (and in fact I'm probably walking a fine line as it is), I'd have to build a whole new fence around my yard with a locking gate. There are swimming pool restrictions, where I'm at.

So many things go into public policy, don't they? Home swimming pools provide all sorts of benefits for children: physical exercise, fresh air and sunshine, skills development, socialization; rather an excellent alternative to sitting in front of a video game unit, playing in traffic or selling drugs on street corners.

Did anyone here ever suggested that a risk-free environment is desirable, let alone possible? Has anyone ever suggested that when balancing risks and benefits, any risk should always outweigh all benefits?

Has anyone here yet demonstrated a benefit to children in having unsecured firearms in a home?

Do you seriously think you have a point?

The source of the disingenuousness in this situation is quite obvious.

[pipoman]

94. Uh

I didn't say this is the swimming pools forum, a question was asked and answered.

"What do you know about the positions anyone here takes on "swimming pool restrictions or bans"?"

Not a thing. There aren't too many gun control advocates who use the lame justification for suspension of the second "for the children" either, but they do wander through occasionally. None to date have directed me to their work/advocacy in the field of swimming pool restrictions to bring down the 1.4 per 100k drowning deaths in the US of A. Gee, just imagine a drowning rate of, say, .70 per 100k. I admittedly don't know how many of the 856 drownings in 2005 were in private swimming pools, but it would be safe to say that many of the 856 were. We obviously aren't going to get rid of bathtubs...though why not. A shower works just fine for me, couldn't have been too many of those drownings happen in a shower. There are the waterless toilets available which would completely eliminate the chance for toilet drownings. People don't NEED bathtubs or toilets with water now do they.





Here, try it yourself.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

"There are swimming pool restrictions, where I'm at."

There are swimming pool and gun restrictions where I'm at too, they just aren't good enough, obviously, because they still kill far too many children.

"Home swimming pools provide all sorts of benefits for children: physical exercise, fresh air and sunshine, skills development, socialization; rather an excellent alternative to sitting in front of a video game unit, playing in traffic or selling drugs on street corners."

We don't disagree on that. I don't advocate the banning or further restrictions on pools, though I wouldn't miss private swimming pools at all.

Hunting and the shooting sports provide all sorts of benefits for children: physical exercise, fresh air and sunshine, skills development, socialization; rather an excellent alternative to sitting in front of a video game unit, playing in traffic or selling drugs on street corners.

"Did anyone here ever suggested that a risk-free environment is desirable, let alone possible? Has anyone ever suggested that when balancing risks and benefits, any risk should always outweigh all benefits?"

There are some people who advocate certain positions willing to restrict freedoms which they choose not to exercise or activities they choose not to participate in predicated on an assertion of being "for the children" with no acknowledgment that some kids benefit greatly from those activities.

"Has anyone here yet demonstrated a benefit to children in having unsecured firearms in a home?"

People whose kids are shot accidentally in a home by using an unsecured firearm usually end up like this guy:

"A man whose 5-year-old son accidentally shot and killed his sister was arrested at the cemetery before the little girl's burial.
James Michael Booher faces charges that include child neglect for allegedly leaving a semiautomatic handgun where his son could find it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x171288

It is already illegal in most states to leave an unsecured firearm available to a child.

The point is that there are laws in place for nearly every scenario. There are risks in society. Some people tend to exaggerate the statistical risks and make idiotic claims of certain activities in an effort to calm their own fears.

[DrCory]

85. The end result, death, is the same.

Nothing "silly" about that, especially since motor vehicles kill more folk in the U.S. than firearms. If your stated goal is in fact reducing risk and cost to the community, I expect you should be addressing this issue with calls for more stringent regulation and limited access of/to motor vehicles.

[Redneck Socialist]

83. We learned that he lied on his 4473

Assuming that he purchased the gun himself.

[WWFZD]

96. Astounding

"The shooting was the first incident of serious violence in the festival's 37-year history, said Rob Townsend, Folklife's executive director. About 250,000 people are expected to attend over the holiday weekend."

Granted that there were probably only a dozen people attending Folklife 1, but hasn't Washington state had fairly liberal, er, relaxed firearms prohibitions in place for many years?
We're lucky that the streets haven't flowed red with the blood of the nonbelievers since '72.

[iverglas]

97. this is very confusing

Granted that there were probably only a dozen people attending Folklife 1, but hasn't Washington state had fairly liberal, er, relaxed firearms prohibitions in place for many years?

Yes ... and ...?

Is a folk festival where you would most expect to find the kind of people who haul firearms around with them wherever they go?

Apparently -- if you read something relevant to this report, you'll see -- the folk festival has lately been attracting quite a different and unsavoury element, which appears to be attending for lack of anywhere else to hang out, get drunk and behave badly.

Oh look. One of them had a gun.


We're lucky that the streets haven't flowed red with the blood of the nonbelievers since '72.

Huh. Do assholes with guns target / randomly hit only nonbelievers?

[uppityperson]

99. Maybe if enough OTHER people were armed, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many as he did.

Maybe if ENOUGH other people had guns on them, they could've taken him down before he killed so many!
:shrug: Oh, wait, he didn't.

:sarcasm: ?

[uppityperson]

98. Astounding that it has been a peaceful event for this long?

Well, Folk Life Festival has been about Folk Life stuff, and a peaceful event. As one person yelled at the shooter (when the shooter was grabbed) this is a peaceful event and you have no right to come here with this type crap. I think that people who would like to engage in bs have plenty of other places to go.

Or do you mean it is astounding that no one has taken advantage of a large peaceful event like this to do a mass killing?

What do "nonbelievers" have to do with it?

[iverglas]

100. I thought that was pretty funny

A total asshole pulls out a gun and three people get shot, and the on-lookers' reaction is ... to chide him. ;)

Only at a folk festival ...

[uppityperson]

101. Me too, was laughing and being happy for folk festival people's reactions.