GUNS IN THE NEWS - May 1 - 3, 2004

[CO Liberal]

Please try to adhere to the following voluntary guidelines, in order that we can have an orderly discussion of gun-related news topics:

1 - Feel free to add any CURRENT stories to this thread by replying to this message. In order to be considered current, stories should have been originally posted on the Internet within the previous 24 hours, or provide follow-up to a story that was previously posted on the J/PS board. On Mondays (since many people do not log in to DU over the weekend), stories can be posted from Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.

2 - Both pro-gun and anti-gun stories, editorials, and press releases are welcome in this thread, as long as they're current. Please do not post links to items from a few years back that support your position.

3 - Bear in mind that any links to extremely right-wing sites (such as Newsmax, CNS, or the Washington Times) or intentionally pro-gun or pro-control sites (such as the NRA or the Brady Campaign) are not considered reliable sources by many DU-ers. If at all possible, try to find a link for your story from a more mainstream source, such as a general-circulation newspaper or magazine site. If you choose to use a slanted site, be prepared for any negative feedback you may receive.

4 - Do not change story titles. In other words, if the Oskosh Gazette's web site runs a story titled "Two Killed in Holdup", the title of your message should read "Two Killed in Holdup". Don't change it to "Gun Owner Kills Two People", or anything else that changes the meaning of the story.

5 - If it's not clear from the title where the story occurred, add the city, state, or country in parentheses after the title.

6 - The person adding a news story to the "GITN" thread is allowed (and encouraged) to comment on that story, indicating their position on the topic being discussed. These comments can appear either at the beginning or end of the post; if possible, place comments in a different typeface so readers can separate the comments from the story. Others who wish to comment on a posted story can do so by replying to that story; this allows other readers to follow the comments by scrolling through the subthread.

7 - Please direct your comments to the story, rather than attacking the person posting the story or any person responding to the story. In accordance with DU rules, any message that appears to be a personal attack against another DU-er or a violation of any other DU rule will be reported to the moderators.

8 - If you object to these guidelines, do everyone else a favor and go to another thread.

[CO Liberal]

1. Gun safety presenter shoots self (FL)

No word yet as to whether he was wearing his "Eddie Eagle" costume at the time... - Wayne

* * * * *

Gun safety presenter shoots self

ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- A federal drug agent shot himself in the leg during a gun safety presentation to children in what police describe as an accident. His bosses, however, are still investigating the incident.

The Drug Enforcement Administration agent, whose name was not released, was speaking April 9 to about 50 adults and students organized by the Orlando Minority Youth Golf Association, witnesses and police said.

He drew his .40-caliber duty weapon and removed the magazine, according to the police report. He then pulled back the slide and asked an audience member to look inside the gun and confirm it wasn't loaded.

Witnesses said when the agent released the slide, one shot fired into the top of his left thigh. The gun was pointed at the floor.

<more>

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/05/01/dea.shooting.ap/index.html

[slackmaster]

7. No guns are used in Eddie Eagle presentations

This was just a dumbass cop failing to follow the basic rules of safe gun handling: He took someone else's word that the weapon wasn't loaded, just like Senator Feinstein did in the infamous photo of her waving an AK-47 at a crowd of people.

He should be suspended until he can demonstrate an ability to handle a weapon safely.

[iverglas]

11. "reading in"

He took someone else's word that the weapon wasn't loaded ...

"Reading in" is a useful tool of statutory construction, but should generally be avoided when reading news reports.

The report said that an audience member was asked to "confirm" that the firearm was not loaded. This suggests to me that the agent had already done his own check, and was showing the firearm to the audience member for a second opinion -- I would read it as meaning that this was so that the audience member could see for him/herself, on behalf of the audience, that it was not loaded. Sorta like a magician gets an audience member to "confirm" that there is nothing in the hat.

But that's just what the words used suggest to me. And I have no idea how anyone could "confirm" that a firearm was unloaded when it must have been loaded. Based on a couple of sentences, I wouldn't form or state a firm opinion, anyhow.

.

[slackmaster]

12. Facts show that he did NOT perform a check properly

He is a dumbass and failed to follow the rules, plain and simple.

My friend who is a former federal cop told me the standard procedure in federal gun safety training is to check the chamber visually AND with a finger whenever possible.

And I have no idea how anyone could "confirm" that a firearm was unloaded when it must have been loaded.

Let me spell it out for you: He screwed up.

[iverglas]

16. more

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sns-othernews-0430shootself,1,5093504.story
(You might have to register free. Why do these sites offer a "non-US" option for location, and then demand a zip code before one can register?? I've decided I live in 90210, Canada ...)

The presentation was part of a class called "The Game of Life, The Game of Golf," according to a police report. It was held by the Orlando Minority Youth Golf Association, which aims to introduce minority children to the sport. The agent was speaking to the youths about making good life choices and included a presentation on gun safety, according to the report.

During the speech, the agent drew his .40-caliber duty weapon and removed the magazine, the report said. He then pulled back the slide and asked a man in the audience to look inside the weapon to make sure it was not loaded, the report said.

"The person nodded that it didn't have ammunition," Farmer recounted. "The gun was never pointed at anyone."

Witnesses told police that the agent kept his gun pointed toward the floor and when he released the slide, the weapon fired one shot into the top of his thigh.

So he may indeed have failed to check it himself. And seems to have rather bad aim. Reminds me of a French nursery rhyme.

Trois beau canards s'en vont baignant
En roulant ma boule
Visa le noir, tira le blanc
Rouli, roulant, ma boule roulant ...
O! fils du roi, tu es méchant!
En roulant ma boule ...

Aimed at the black duck, shot the white one. Aimed at the floor, shot himself in the leg.

"Everyone was pretty shaken up," <an audience member> said. "But the point of gun safety hit home. Unfortunately, the agent had to get shot. But after seeing that, my nephew doesn't want to have anything to do with guns."

Heh. Couldn't have planned it better, could we? ;)

.

[slackmaster]

17. Speaking only for myself

If I was going to do a gun safety demonstration with a real weapon I wouldn't have any ammunition on my person other than a "snap-cap", an inert device shaped like ammunition used to demonstrate function and protect the firing pin during dry-firing.

I'd leave any live ammo in the car or at home.

[OpSomBlood]

21. Confusing story.

I live in Orlando, and this story was pretty big news here.

I was perplexed by what happened, and even went so far as to try to simulate it with my own Glock 21 (not the shooting in the leg part, of course).

I don't understand how he could have ejected the magazine, pulled the slide back, and still had a round in the chamber. The only explanation I can come up with is that the chamber was so unbelievably filthy that the gunk held the round in. It seems to me that the officer was teaching these kids to "check" by only looking to ensure that there was no magazine in. But to clear a pistol, you must also look for daylight through the barrel to make sure there is nothing in there.

And if this is what happened, then this guy has no business teaching a gun safety course.

Also, it was remarkably irresponsible to use his service weapon as a demonstration. Glock and most other manufacturers make non-firing replicas for this exact purpose.




This guy's gun should have never left it's holster.

[CO Liberal]

25. And This Guy Was Very Well-Trained

What do you think will happen when more and more less-trained individuals get their hands on guns?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

28. Uh, no he was not well-trained

If he was well-trained he wouldn't have:

A) Had live ammunition anywhere nearby,

B) Used his service weapon for a safety demonstration,

C) Failed to properly check the chamber, or

D) Shot himself.

Point D in particular is ipso facto proof he was not well-trained. If I was his boss I'd bust him to desk duty for 6 months and require him to re-take the department's gun safety course. After that I'd personally test him for ability to demonstrate safe handling before I'd allow him to carry a weapon on duty. I'd require him to write a letter of apology to the people who witnessed this "accident", and his HR file will contain a formal reprimand for this incident.

What do you think will happen when more and more less-trained individuals get their hands on guns?

Do you have any evidence that trend is occurring?

[natasha1]

31. You will have more and more accidents.

There is never an excuse for firearm "accidents". When guns "go off" when you are not expecting them to, it's because the shooter is stupid, careless, or both.

When things get shot that aren't meant to get shot, likewise, it is because the shooter is stupid, careless, or both.

Yes, it is logical to expect that as more and more less-trained individuals "get their hands on" guns, there will be more accidents.

The question is, is the burden of the accidents worth the benefit of the freedom they insure.

I, of course, feel that they are.

Just as I feel no connection is warranted between crime and the bearing of arms to preserve freedom, I feel no connection is warranted between accidents and bearing arms to preserve freedom. The world is a dangerous place. There will always be crime and there will always be accidents. This has nothing to do with preserving the means to preserve freedom.

Nat

[CO Liberal]

37. And There Will Always Be Mindless Idiots Out There

Why make it easier for them to get their hands on guns?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

39. Who's trying to make it easier for them to get guns?

:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

40. Any Time The Gun Supply is Increased....

...the greater that chances of unqualified individuals getting their hands on them.

[FeebMaster]

42. Speaking of increasing the supply,

what do you think happens every time you pass a more restrictive law? Either it makes for fewer guns on the legal market or makes dealing in them in the illegal market more dangerous. Either way, as long as theres a demand for the regulated item, it's going to drive the prices in the unregulated market up which gives even more people willing to ignore such laws an incentive to deal in the regulated product illegally which, in the end, means more of the regulated product on the streets. It doesn't even have to be guns. The same thing happens with any regulated/banned product. Drugs, high-flow toilets, liquor back in the day.

[CO Liberal]

45. By Definition...

...anyone who buys a black-market gun is NOT a "law-abiding gun owner", and should be dealt with by the authorities.

[FeebMaster]

49. Right,

but that has nothing to do with increasing the supply of guns.

[CO Liberal]

50. Close Down The Black Markets, Reduce the Supply

[FeebMaster]

52. How do you close down the black markets? (nt)

[CO Liberal]

55. Do Whatever It Takes n/t

[FeebMaster]

61. What an answer.

:eyes:

There's only one way to get rid of a black market and I don't think the authoritarians have the stomach for it. Does it involve harsh sentences, maybe even the death penalty for gun/drug runners? Does it involve more law enforcement officers? Does it involve scrapping the 4th amendment so police can search anyone, anywhere, at any time? Maybe start torturing drug/gun running suspects so they'll give up their accomplices. How about a life sentence for people who buy drugs/guns illegally?

None of those things will shut down the black market. The only way to get rid of the illegal unregulated market is to get rid of the regulation in the legal market. The more you regulate the legal market the more demand there will be in the illegal market. The more you crack down on the illegal market, the more dangerous it becomes to deal in the illegal market. This drives up the price of the goods in the illegal market which drives up the incentives of participating in the illegal market. The more you crack down on it the bigger the problem becomes. It's an endless cycle. Go ahead and have the police kill every gun runner/drug dealer they find. For every one they kill ten more will take his place, eager to make a fortune.

There's one other side effect of cracking down on the black market and that's the increased violence. If you're going to send dealers to prison or kill them then they have nothing to lose by shooting it out with the police or killing informants and potential informants. Dealers will also kill each other, of course, although demand for drugs and guns is high, it's still limited and dealers are more than happy to kill each other off to get a bigger piece of the pie.


"Do whatever it takes", you said. Are you really willing to do whatever it takes?

[CO Liberal]

64. If It Will Prevent The next School Shooting.....

...isn't it worth the price??

[FeebMaster]

65. What are you talking about?

Did you even read my post?

[CO Liberal]

66. Yes I Did

Stock answers as to why we can't control the black market, so we should just give up and let everyone get whatever kind of gun they want....

More crap that wasn't worth wasting my time preparing a response.

Stop thinking of what we CAN'T do, and start thinking about what we CAN do.

[FeebMaster]

67. You're the one who thinks it can be done.

Why don't you come up with a suggestion.

[CO Liberal]

68. Why Should I Bother???

Any time one of us pro-control folks comes up with something, one of you pro-gunners shoots it down (pun intended).

The solutions will not come from one side or the other - they will come from both sides working together. And that will never happen when so many people refuse to compromise.

[FeebMaster]

70. Compromise again.

"Any time one of us pro-control folks comes up with something, one of you pro-gunners shoots it down (pun intended)."

Well, maybe if someone came up with something other than the standard "Weah, renew the AWB so people can't get AK-47s and bazookas" or "Weah, close the gun show loophole because they're Tupperware parties for criminals" crap there could be some meaningful discussion. Of course, I won't be a part of it because I see no point in compromising with people who consider forcing the other side into giving things up while they give nothing in return to be compromise.

"The solutions will not come from one side or the other - they will come from both sides working together. And that will never happen when so many people refuse to compromise."

Gun owners did a lot of compromising last century. What did they get in return? More to the point, what did I get in return? I didn't even agree to any of that compromising. When Reagan banned the future civilian production of machine guns in 1986, did they set aside a BAR for me to buy at pre-'86 prices when I was old enough? When Bush banned the import of 40 something rifles in '89, did they send me one of the ones with thumb-hole stocks they decided to allow into the country? When they passed the AWB in '94, did they send me a few high capacity magazines before the freeze on manufacture for civilians drove the prices through the roof? What did gun owners get in return for all of this compromising? I'm pretty sure they didn't get anything, but maybe I missed out on the memo that spelled things out.

[iverglas]

72. me, I don't compromise my rights

And I don't ask other rights holders to compromise theirs. Certainly, nobody can bargain away anyone else's rights by "compromising" them. I wouldn't stand for my reproductive rights to be interfered with by such a process, for instance, and I don't expect anyone else to stand for any of their rights to be.

If the exercise of rights is to be limited, there must be justification. If there is justification for a law limiting the exercise of rights, and the law is made, no "compromise" is needed. No one who disagrees with the law is asked to "compromise"; s/he is simply required to comply with it, and his/her non-compliance is punishable.

In the process of determining what justifiable limitations on the exercise of rights can actually be enforced, some "compromise" might be necessary -- on the part of those in whose interests others' exercise of their rights is to be limited; i.e., rights might be restricted less than is justified, in the interests of effectively applying at least some of the restrictions that are determined to be necessary.

In that case, it would not be the supposedly aggrieved rights holders who were compromising; it would be the public compromising its own interests in order to secure the adherence of the rights holders to the rules. The rights holders would simply be playing "might makes right", and getting away with it.

For instance, it might be perfectly justifiable to prohibit the sale of certain drugs that are now illegal, for the perfectly valid public purpose of protecting individuals from addiction and protecting society from the foreseeable actions of addicts. A society might even be said to have a duty to do this, just as it has a duty to outlaw and prosecute homicide, for instance.

But if such a prohibition is patently ineffective, and can in fact be shown to cause harms without appreciably reducing the harms it is meant to reduce, then a "compromise" might be necessary in order to achieve the goal of protecting the legitimate interests in issue. Individuals and society might indeed be better protected from the harmful effects of drug addiction if drugs were not illegal. But in point of fact, nobody's interests would be being compromised here -- it would in fact be in the interests of, rather than contrary to the interests of, the various classes of people to whom the duty of protection is owed to decriminalize drugs.

It simply is not arguable, by a rational person, that decriminalizing or deregulating all aspects of firearms possession, use, sale, etc. that are now unlawful or regulated would reduce the harms associated with those activities.

What may be arguable is that it would be extremely difficult to impossible to secure compliance with a particular level of limitation on rights, in a particular time and place, and that a law that imposed that level of limitation would be bad law since it would be unenforceable; and non-compliant behaviour would be more dangerous if it were outlawed or tightly regulated than if it were less tightly regulated.

In that situation, declining to apply the level of controls that was justified would be the compromise. The interests compromised would be the interests that would be better protected by tighter controls. The rights holders would not be asked to compromise anything; they would simply be made subject to justified limitations on the exercise of their rights.

Of course, they could always "compromise" by just agreeing to obey the damned law, where the law had been justified according to the applicable rules; but that's obviously too much to ask.

.

[FeebMaster]

74. Thanks for sharing

but CO Liberal and I were discussing gun rights and the compromises that took place in the last century regarding those rights. Good to hear you don't compromise your rights. I don't either.

[iverglas]

76. hey, at least I made sense

CO Liberal and I were discussing gun rights and the compromises that took place in the last century regarding those rights.

No ... *you* were calling something a compromise and then asking absurd questions about it. That doesn't make it a compromise, of course, or mean that the questions deserve answers.

You have not been asked to "compromise", as I very clearly explained. Perhaps if you read what I wrote again, you'd understand this.

I mean ... unless there's actually been a decision by the appropriate judicial authority that the limitations on the exercise of your rights that you apparently object to were constitutionally invalid, and they somehow remain in force anyhow as a result of some such "compromise" ...

Individuals may indeed compromise when it comes to their own choices about how they exercise their own rights. I'll compromise with my neighbour by declining to exercise my right to have the nasty shed whose roof extends over my lot line removed, as long as they stop whining about the branch of my tree that overhangs it. But I cannot "compromise" the right of all property owners to have nasty sheds whose roofs overhang their lots removed.

If there were some important public interest in having the sheds left in place, that justified violating property rights to achieve that purpose, the government could enact legislation that interfered with my exercise of my property rights -- but this is not a compromise. And if that legislation were struck down as an unjustified intererence with the exercise of rights, I could still "compromise" by declining to enforce my rights.

The only "compromise" that I see, in relation to statutory/regulatory restrictions on access to firearms, is that some firearms owners will agree to obey the laws only if the laws happen to be to their liking. Or, perhaps more commonly and more importantly, will vote for governments that propose to limit their exercise of their rights in the public interest, and perfectly validly, only if the limits are to their liking.

That isn't what I'd call "compromise". It's more like what I'd call "blackmail". And it is identical in nature to the refusal of segregationists to vote for governments that proposed to interfere with the exercise of their rights (e.g. private property rights) by enacting anti-discrimination legislation. They're perfectly entitled to elevate their personal interests above the public interest when they vote, but that doesn't make them nice people. And it doesn't make any limitations on their rights that they might agree to vote for a "compromise".

.

[FeebMaster]

77. Well I kind of thought

my whole point was that there wasn't much compromising being done. People who own guns, or want to own them, are being told to comply with the law or be thrown in jail. CO Liberal is the one saying if both sides work together and come to a compromise we can solve the whole gun problem thing. Why don't you respond to his posts and talk to him about the meaning of compromise?

[iverglas]

58. right ... they grow on trees

Increasing the price of a good by restricting its availability causes new suppliers to enter the market (or existing suppliers to expand their supply) if they are willing to take the risks ... and if there are additional goods available to supply.

Undoubtedly restrictions on legal access to firearms will cause a rise in attempts to steal firearms, for instance, thus moving the firearms in question from the legal to the illegal market, if successful. They will also undoubtedly provide a financial incentive for "law-abiding gun owners" to transfer their own firearms to the illegal market. (And there are effective ways of minimizing the number of such conversions.) But how such restrictions will actually increase the number of firearms in toto remains entirely beyond my comprehension.

.

[FeebMaster]

62. Considering the number of guns manufactured last century,

they might as well grow on trees.

"But how such restrictions will actually increase the number of firearms in toto remains entirely beyond my comprehension."

Well, you can always build more guns. Or smuggle them into the country from somewhere where they aren't regulated. You might not be increasing the number of guns in toto, but you're certainly increasing the number of guns in the market in the country where they're restricted.

[iverglas]

69. yesssss ...

Well, you can always build more guns.

Mm hm. I mean, I can't, but I'm sure somebody can. As we've discussed, the building of firearms in large quantities is just such a cottage industry. Or are they a crop? ...

Or smuggle them into the country from somewhere where they aren't regulated.

Yes ... and this is where things like international treaties and trade sanctions come into it. Especially when yer the big boy on the block.

Please give up the "war on drugs" analogy. We are all quite aware that there is no war on drugs. I will quite willingly concede that if a war on the illegal possession, sale, importation, etc. of firearms were prosecuted with the same zeal as the "war on drugs", the US would be awash in illegally possessed firearms.

.

[FeebMaster]

71. Yes.

"Mm hm. I mean, I can't, but I'm sure somebody can. As we've discussed, the building of firearms in large quantities is just such a cottage industry. Or are they a crop? ..."

Guns can be built cheaply and easily. Some models more than others, of course. If they can be manufactured illegally at a profit, then I'm sure someone will take the plunge and do it.


"Yes ... and this is where things like international treaties and trade sanctions come into it. Especially when yer the big boy on the block."

Right. If a law making something illegal outright doesn't stop people from doing something, no doubt international treaties and trade sanctions will take care of it.


"Please give up the "war on drugs" analogy. We are all quite aware that there is no war on drugs. I will quite willingly concede that if a war on the illegal possession, sale, importation, etc. of firearms were prosecuted with the same zeal as the "war on drugs", the US would be awash in illegally possessed firearms."

And here I thought the US was already awash in illegally possessed firearms. The war on drugs analogy works quite well, I think. If you'd like, I'll switch to an alcohol prohibition analogy. It doesn't really matter what you're prohibiting. Prohibition is prohibition.

[iverglas]

73. abject you know what

It doesn't really matter what you're prohibiting. Prohibition is prohibition.

Yeah. That's why the US is awash in, oh, anthrax. Possession and sale of it is prohibited, so obviously there is now a huge black market in it, and laboratories on every block madly churning it out ...

How 'bout those baby walkers that have been prohibited?
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml03/03009.html



It's been over a year now, in the US. Are the streets awash with them yet?


The war on drugs analogy works quite well, I think.

I just can't think of who would actually continue to assert that there is a war on drugs being prosecuted by the US govt ... or why anyone who didn't think it would say it ...

Perhaps I should make myself plainer, eh? I certainly see a war on certain classes of drug users. Just no war on drugs. Get it?

.

[FeebMaster]

75. I'll say.

"Yeah. That's why the US is awash in, oh, anthrax. Possession and sale of it is prohibited, so obviously there is now a huge black market in it, and laboratories on every block madly churning it out ..."

I'll say. Wasn't someone mailing it all over the place a while back? I don't know if I'd call it a huge black market. I doubt demand for anthrax is particularly high.


"How 'bout those baby walkers that have been prohibited?
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml03/03009.html

It's been over a year now, in the US. Are the streets awash with them yet?"

I didn't realize they had criminalized selling baby walkers without a license. Those people on ebay better watch out.

Baby Walkers at Ebay

"I just can't think of who would actually continue to assert that there is a war on drugs being prosecuted by the US govt ... or why anyone who didn't think it would say it ...

Perhaps I should make myself plainer, eh? I certainly see a war on certain classes of drug users. Just no war on drugs. Get it?"

Oh, I get it. Call it what you like War on Drugs War on Some Drugs War on Some Drug Users War on Certain Classes of Drug Users. It's all the same to me and the prohibition analogy still holds quite well.

[iverglas]

78. oh dear, pardon me

I should really have checked with ebay. Mea culpa.

The baby walkers have been banned in Canada; there appears to be only a voluntary recall in the US.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/2004/2004_15.htm
(It's a govt press release; no copyright issues.)

This prohibition also applies to the sale of baby walkers as second-hand items and so they may not be sold at flea markets or garage sales. Persons who already have baby walkers are advised to permanently dismantle and dispose of them.

... Typically, incidents linked to baby walkers involve head injuries that result from falls down stairs. However, other injuries occur when the child in the baby walker is able to reach dangerous objects that are otherwise inaccessible.

This prohibition has been implemented through an amendment to Part I of Schedule I to Hazardous Products Act, as published in Part II of the Canada Gazette.

Now, I think that the baby walkers will make a fine analogy for us in future.

"It is the safety of our children that is of the most vital importance and today I am pleased to announce that Canada is the first country in the world to ban the sale of these products. I would also like to commend those businesses who complied with a voluntary ban in the past."

See?? We're thinking of the children!

I'll now hear argument for the case that a ban on the sale of baby walkers is an unjustifiable interference with the exercise of some right or other.

Due to safety concerns, a voluntary retail industry ban on these products had been in place since 1989. However, in recent years, more and more baby walkers have found their way onto the Canadian market and as a result, injuries to children continue to occur.

Look! An incipient black market! Surely now that there is an actual ban, business can be expected to pick up.


Wasn't someone mailing <anthrax> all over the place a while back? I don't know if I'd call it a huge black market. I doubt demand for anthrax is particularly high.

Gosh. Doesn't that kinda contradict your It doesn't really matter what you're prohibiting. Prohibition is prohibition.??

To put it another way ... well, I've pretty much already put it this way, but of course you haven't actually bothered to respond ... where there is justification for prohibiting/regulating an activity, the onus is really on the party alleging that the prohibition/regulation will exacerbate rather than reduce the harm that is sought to be remedied and that the prohibition/regulation could, prima facie, be expected to effectively remedy.

A ban on possession of anthrax (more accurately, of course, extremely tight regulation of the possession of anthrax) seems to work relatively well. We'll have to wait and see how the ban on the sale of baby walkers in Canada works out.

Then there's the ban on the sale of cars that are not equipped with, oh, seatbelts and headlights ... the ban on the sale of leaded paint ... the ban on the sale of aerosol products containing CFCs ... just so many bans on so many things. And so many black markets in them?


Call it what you like War on Drugs War on Some Drugs War on Some Drug Users War on Certain Classes of Drug Users. It's all the same to me and the prohibition analogy still holds quite well.

Yeah, it's all the same. The fact that the victims of the "war" happen to belong to a particular class of people, and that the class of people in question are also subject to all sorts of other oppressive measures, is just some big coincidence.

Back when right-wing RC governments in Quebec were busy outlawing Jehovah's Witness activities (distributing literature on the public sidewalks) on the pretext of regulating roads and highways, their motives were pretty transparent. They weren't regulating roads and highways: they were persecuting JoHos. The "war on drugs" may be a tiny bit more subtle, but it doesn't take a microscope to see what its real purpose is. And it ain't to protect individuals or the public from the nefarious effects of drug addiction.

So ... no fucking wonder it hasn't achieved that objective. It was never meant to.

.

[FeebMaster]

83. No doubt.

"Now, I think that the baby walkers will make a fine analogy for us in future."

No doubt.


"I'll now hear argument for the case that a ban on the sale of baby walkers is an unjustifiable interference with the exercise of some right or other."

Yes. The right to keep and sell baby walkers.


"Look! An incipient black market! Surely now that there is an actual ban, business can be expected to pick up."

There you go. Ban things and people still buy and sell them. Maybe what they really need to stop this baby walker madness is an international treaty or some trade sanctions.


"Gosh. Doesn't that kinda contradict your It doesn't really matter what you're prohibiting. Prohibition is prohibition.??"

Not at all. If there isn't enough demand to make selling something worth the risk, though, there might not be much of a market. See the baby walkers example above.


"To put it another way ... well, I've pretty much already put it this way, but of course you haven't actually bothered to respond ... where there is justification for prohibiting/regulating an activity, the onus is really on the party alleging that the prohibition/regulation will exacerbate rather than reduce the harm that is sought to be remedied and that the prohibition/regulation could, prima facie, be expected to effectively remedy."

Wow, silly me. Here I thought the onus would be on the people advocating prohibition to show that prohibition would actually solve the problem. That's assuming they could show that there is justification for prohibiting/regulating the activity in the first place, and that's a pretty big assumption. Apparently all it takes to solve a problem is to ban what's causing the problem. Think of all the problems in the world that could be effectively remedied if we just followed this simple principle. Wow, iverglas, you should run for office.


"A ban on possession of anthrax (more accurately, of course, extremely tight regulation of the possession of anthrax) seems to work relatively well. We'll have to wait and see how the ban on the sale of baby walkers in Canada works out."

Or, more likely, there just aren't a lot of people out there who want anthrax. Obviously, if you really want it you'll probably be able to find a way to get it, kind of like the guy that was mailing it to people.


"Then there's the ban on the sale of cars that are not equipped with, oh, seatbelts and headlights ... the ban on the sale of leaded paint ... the ban on the sale of aerosol products containing CFCs ... just so many bans on so many things. And so many black markets in them?"

Is there a demand for cars without headlights? There are alternatives on the market for leaded paint and aerosols containing CFCs that are far cheaper than anything the black market would likely provide. Again, we're back to lack of demand. Nobody is going to stay in business selling a product nobody wants for very long.

"Yeah, it's all the same. The fact that the victims of the "war" happen to belong to a particular class of people, and that the class of people in question are also subject to all sorts of other oppressive measures, is just some big coincidence."

What people are those? People not employed by the government?


"Back when right-wing RC governments in Quebec were busy outlawing Jehovah's Witness activities (distributing literature on the public sidewalks) on the pretext of regulating roads and highways, their motives were pretty transparent. They weren't regulating roads and highways: they were persecuting JoHos. The "war on drugs" may be a tiny bit more subtle, but it doesn't take a microscope to see what its real purpose is. And it ain't to protect individuals or the public from the nefarious effects of drug addiction.

That's funny. There are people on the pro-gun side who say the same thing about people trying to regulate guns. I for one have never claimed that the war on drugs was just a war on drugs. But calling it the "war on drugs" is a lot less cumbersome than calling it the "war on drugs but not really since what we're actually all about is violating people's rights and bypassing all kinds of 4th and 5th amendment protections for the purpose of controlling them and enriching ourselves with power and money oh and we really hate black people which is why the 'drug war' affects them most of all and it's a shame some white people get screwed in the process but hey we've got all kinds of power and money now so we don't really care."

See. War on drugs is more convenient.


"So ... no fucking wonder it hasn't achieved that objective. It was never meant to."

Yes, yes. Prohibition on guns will work so much better than all the other prohibitions in the past because prohibition on guns will actually be about prohibition on guns and not just keeping poor people and minorities down like all the prohibitions in the past have actually been about.

[minavasht]

86. Uh, how many people use anthrax daily?

How many enjoy recreational anthraxing at least once a year? How many think that it is necessary for their protection?
Maybe prohibition of something desired will not work.
BTW prohibition of anthrax didn’t work when somebody really wanted to find some.

[slackmaster]

80. So, what's your solution to that problem?

Reducing the supply of firearms, which will result in their value and therefore prices increasing, therefore making them unavailable to people of modest means?

[CO Liberal]

2. 6th-grader brings gun to school (HI)

Trouble in paradise... - Wayne

* * * * *

6th-grader brings gun to school

LIHU'E, Kaua'i — Four Kapa'a Middle School sixth-graders have been suspended after one of them brought an unloaded automatic handgun to school on Wednesday and passed it around to the others.

The child who brought the weapon was given a one-year suspension; the remaining students were immediately placed on a 10-day suspension pending investigation of the case. Officials said the school penalties may be adjusted after a review of their cases.

Meanwhile, the county prosecuting attorney is considering criminal charges for improper handling of a firearm.

"That's something we would normally prosecute under the 'place to keep' law," said Deputy Prosecutor Craig De Costa.

<more>

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/May/02/ln/ln20a.html

[CO Liberal]

3. Man shot after allegedly pointing gun at state troopers (PA)

Yet another "law-abiding" gun owner we don't have to worry about. Or does this count as one of those "defensive gun uses"? - Wayne

* * * * *

Man shot after allegedly pointing gun at state troopers

Associated Press

WATERVILLE, Pa. - An Ohio man was shot and seriously injured after he pointed a gun at state troopers early Sunday, police said.

Michael Pierce of Ironton, who was staying at a campground in Cummings Township, Lycoming County, was involved in a traffic accident late Saturday night but left the scene before police arrived, authorities said.

Police learned he was staying at a campground nearby and arrived there just after midnight. Police said Pierce was intoxicated as he pointed a gun at troopers and refused to drop it, and was shot twice.

Pierce, 30, was airlifted to Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, where he was listed in serious but stable condition, police said.

<more>

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/8574971.htm

[CO Liberal]

4. Gun-rights advocate dies in fire (CO)

If this is the guy I heard quite often on local talk radio, he was not a very nice person. Still, it's a shame he died.

BTW, if he hadn't kept all that ammo in his home, the firefighters may have been able to get in and save him. Think about that. - Wayne

* * * * *

Gun-rights advocate dies in fire

By Julie Poppen, Rocky Mountain News
May 3, 2004

A voice for the right to keep and bear arms has been silenced.

Alan Albertus, 51, one of several founders of the northern Colorado-based pro-gun group Tyranny Response Team, died Thursday afternoon after his home near Loveland caught fire. The cause of the fire is under investigation.

Several residences in the Carter Lake area were evacuated because of a concern about ammunition kept in the home, according to the Larimer County Sheriff's Office.

Albertus' wife, Theresa "Crystal" Albertus, returned from work to find her house burning.

Friends said that Albertus was an avid outdoorsman, as well as a devout defender of the Second Amendment. He helped found the Tyranny Response Team in 2000, in part, to battle gun-control legislation at the state level, as well as what he believed was an erosion of individual rights at the federal level. At one point, the group's Web site described the group as "America's only no-compromise grass-roots pro-freedom pro-Bill of Rights group out there."

The group has targeted anti-gun activist Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed during the Columbine High School shootings. Critics charged that Tyranny Response was behind threats against Mauser.

<more>

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_2855760,00.html

[CO Liberal]

5. Man Pulls Gun On Taco Shop Patron (CA)

Gee, a gun AND brass knuckles. Sure sounds like a "law-abiding gun owner" to me.... NOT!!! - Wayne

* * * * *

Man Pulls Gun On Taco Shop Patron

Victim Punched In Face With Brass Knuckles

SAN DIEGO -- One man attacked another in a Golden Hills taco shop Sunday and later put a gun to the victim's head outside, SDPD Sgt. Alan Hayward said.

The attack occurred at Humberto's Taco Shop at 1019 25th Street at about 2:30 a.m., 10News reported.

Kevin Tornai told police that a man bumped into his friend, Cameron Bielman, while they were in line at the shop.

<snip>

"My friend then told the guy that we were all cool and there was no problem," Bielman said. "The guy then punched Kevin in the face."

The man allegedly punched Tornai three times in the face while wearing what appeared to be brass knuckles, police said.

<snip>

Tornai told police, "We got our stuff and went outside to leave and I saw him come out of a truck and he was holding a gun in his right hand. He walked up to me and pointed the gun to me and placed the barrel on my forehead."

<more>

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/news/3260328/detail.html

[slackmaster]

8. He'll be banned for life from possessing a firearm

Carrying brass knuckles concealed is a felony in California, as is battery.

When California finally goes shall-issue on concealed weapons permits, this assailant will never qualify for a permit as well as being disqualified from having a gun in the first place.

[CO Liberal]

9. I Want Him Banned NOW!!!!

Not when something else gets passed...NOW!!!!!

[slackmaster]

10. He IS banned right now

Because he's in jail, where he belongs.

After he's convicted he'll still be banned UNDER CURRENT LAWS.

Everything's cool.

[iverglas]

13. "everything's cool"

That's certainly one way of describing an incident in which someone placed the barrel of a firearm on a stranger's forehead in a public place. Not how I'd describe it, but there you are. Tomayto, tomahto.

I think the point here is that if this individual had no known history of doing things like this in the past, he would have been able to obtain a permit to tote the firearm in question around. (As far as I can tell, we don't actually know whether he had such a permit.) He would've been just another one of those "law-abiding gun owners" ... right up until the point when he put the firearm to the head of a stranger whom he perceived to be an annoyance.

Of course, there are some who don't think he should even have required a permit in order to tote his firearm around, and who feel quite justified in flouting any laws that restrict their ability to do that. In their books, permit or no, and absent any previous record of criminal conduct, he really was one of those law-abiding gun owners ... right up until the moment he broke the law.

Everybody is born "law-abiding", eh? And as long as someone manages to get hold of his/her first firearm before becoming a scofflaw, s/he is a "law-abiding gun owner". Until s/he isn't.

.

[slackmaster]

14. Let's clarify a few of these points

I think the point here is that if this individual had no known history of doing things like this in the past, he would have been able to obtain a permit to tote the firearm in question around.

The incident occurred in California, which does not have a shall-issue law. And I doubt very much that someone who behaves in that manner has a squeaky-clean background, but more on that a little later.

On edit: BTW - Even if you have a CCW permit it's illegal to pack heat while consuming alcohol. What do you suppose is the probability that a guy who picks a fight at a taco shop at 2:30 AM has had nothing at all to drink? Having a gun at all while using illegal drugs is also illegal. Not that either drug or alcohol use is alleged, but who would believe the guy was chemically clean?

(As far as I can tell, we don't actually know whether he had such a permit.)

It's extremely improbably that he had a permit. They're very difficult to obtain here. You have to convince the local chief LEO that you have a good reason for a permit, then jump through a whole bunch of hoops. I know only three people who have concealed-weapons permits in California.

He would've been just another one of those "law-abiding gun owners" ... right up until the point when he put the firearm to the head of a stranger whom he perceived to be an annoyance.

Not so. At the moment just before he put the gun to the guy's head he was illegally carrying a (presumably loaded) weapon in city limits, violating both a state law and municipal ordinance. Prior to that he MAY have been illegally carrying a loaded weapon in his car.

Oh, and carrying brass knuckles is a felony in California. So is assaulting someone. So no, he definitely was not abiding by the law at any time we know of prior to the assault and brandishing incidents. He became a criminal at some definable moment significantly before the alleged act of brandishing.

Everybody is born "law-abiding", eh?

Affirmative.

And as long as someone manages to get hold of his/her first firearm before becoming a scofflaw, s/he is a "law-abiding gun owner". Until s/he isn't.

We don't know whether or not the alleged assailant in this case had a prior criminal record, but based on his alleged misbehavior and the neighborhood he was in (about 4 miles from my home BTW) I'd guess he had at least some run-ins with the criminal justice system. If he wasn't actively looking for trouble he was certainly well-prepared for it. And he surely found it.

[iverglas]

18. reading carefully

He would've been just another one of those "law-abiding gun owners" ... right up until the point when he put the firearm to the head of a stranger whom he perceived to be an annoyance.
Not so. At the moment just before he put the gun to the guy's head he was illegally carrying a (presumably loaded) weapon in city limits, violating both a state law and municipal ordinance. Prior to that he MAY have been illegally carrying a loaded weapon in his car.

Yes so. My statement was written in what's known as "the conditional" -- IF he had had a permit to tote his firearm around, he WOULD HAVE been a "law-abiding gun owner". He WOULD HAVE been LEGALLY carrying a firearm around.

The fact that a permit to do that in California is difficult to get is happy coincidence. The incident could just as easily have happened in one of those "shall issue" states of yours, could it not? IF he had lived in one of those states, and IF he had had a permit -- which I gather he could not have been denied if he had no criminal record or other prohibitive problem in his past -- he WOULD HAVE been a "law-abiding gun owner" ... right up until he put a gun to a stranger's head.

Speculation indeed. But so are any inferences as to his background and character from the neighbourhood in which the incident occurred, and so is any conclusion from those inferences that he would not have qualified for a gun-toter permit.

Me, I'll guess that there are people who acquire firarms *before* they become scofflaws, and who are thus "law-abiding gun owners" ... right up until the moment they aren't.

.

[slackmaster]

19. Maybe you answered before my last edit

IF he had had a permit to tote his firearm around, he WOULD HAVE been a "law-abiding gun owner". He WOULD HAVE been LEGALLY carrying a firearm around.

I agree with your conditional speculation if you add one more caveat:

Carrying would have been legal only if he had not been drinking or using illegal drugs. And who with any life experience at all would believe that was the case in this incident? Sober, sane people don't pick fights at taco shops at 2:30 AM.

[iverglas]

20. oh duh

Carrying would have been legal only if he had not been drinking or using illegal drugs.

But until he became intoxicated/impaired and picked up the gun and walked out of the house with it, he WOULD HAVE BEEN "A LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER".

Pick whatever point on the continuum you like. At SOME point, some "law-abiding gun owners" do something illegal with their firearms.

Nobody really gives a shit how "law-abiding" s/he was BEFORE doing that, at that point. The "law-abiding gun owner" who harms someone with a firearm, or threatens to harm someone with a firearm, or uses a firearm to facilitate the commission of an offence, is still a person with a firearm using it in a manner contrary to the public interest, absolutely irrespective of how many days or decades s/he may have been law-abiding up to that point.

It is pure sophistry to point at someone with a firearm who uses it illegally for the first time and say "but s/he is not a law-abiding gun owner!" If s/he acquired the firearm legally and was in legal possession of it at the time s/he decided to use it illegally, s/he WAS a "law-abiding gun owner" and therefore, in the opinion of some, not validly subject to restrictions on his/her possession of firearms up until that moment. And s/he is still too obviously someone who SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN in possession of a firearm at any time, from the perspective of anyone who was harmed by his/her use of it and anyone else who cares.

.

[slackmaster]

22. Nice goalpost move

Keep pushing back in time and eventually you might have a point. This is a mighty poor incident to use as an example of how dangerous gun owners IN GENERAL are to the general public.

Of course the fact that he (almost certainly) did not have a permit kind of makes the discussion moot, eh?

Pick whatever point on the continuum you like. At SOME point, some "law-abiding gun owners" do something illegal with their firearms.

Substitute any other object for "gun" and you still have a true statement.

And s/he is still too obviously someone who SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN in possession of a firearm at any time, from the perspective of anyone who was harmed by his/her use of it and anyone else who cares.

Speaking of sophistry, I don't see anyone offering any practical solution to the problem of non-criminals becoming criminals when they commit their first crime. Perhaps if we could identify them early enough we could re-educate them so they'd never become criminals.

BTW - If you're ever caught with the Mexican food muchies in Golden Hill (that's singular), go to Benny's at 30th and A. The food is much better than any of the multitudinous (foo)-berto's in the city.

[iverglas]

27. that's as may be

This is a mighty poor incident to use as an example of how dangerous gun owners IN GENERAL are to the general public.

If only someone were saying that gun owners in general are dangerous to the general public, there might be a point in there.

Why, really, can't we ever just have a discussion based on what the people involved HAVE ACTUALLY SAID?


Pick whatever point on the continuum you like. At SOME point, some "law-abiding gun owners" do something illegal with their firearms.
Substitute any other object for "gun" and you still have a true statement.

"Pick whatever point on the continuum you like. At SOME point, some 'law-abiding goldfish owners' do something illegal with their firearms"?

No, I'll assume that you meant something more like: "Pick whatever point on the continuum you like. At SOME point, some 'law-abiding goldfish owners' do something illegal with their goldfish".

Hmm. And the risk of harm to any individual, or the general public, when they did, would be ...?


Speaking of sophistry, I don't see anyone offering any practical solution to the problem of non-criminals becoming criminals when they commit their first crime.

Well gosh. And if only that were the problem we were discussing.

My concern is actually about non-criminals becoming criminals and having firearms in their possession with which to do it. I'm just a little less worried about someone aiming a goldfish at me or anyone else than I am about someone aiming a firearm.

And that's even without going into the whole notion of how having ready access to firearms does in fact prompt some people to commit crimes or cause harm that they would would not otherwise have committed or caused if they had not had that access.


When it comes to "Mexican" food, I'll take my own home-made jerk chicken fajitas anytime. ;) Marinate the chicken in lots of Jamaican jerk sauce, burn up some peppers and onions, throw on some sour cream, wrap in a tortilla, and yum. That was Saturday's dinner, and it should be more often. I won't claim they're Mexican; multicultural wraps à la iverglasienne.

I ate in a Taco Bell in South Carolina last year (we have 'em here, but I seldom eat fast food at home). Not something I plan to do again in my lifetime ... given that I might expect it to be shorter if I did.

.

[RoeBear]

44. Oh look!

First we complain about:
"Why, really, can't we ever just have a discussion based on what the people involved HAVE ACTUALLY SAID?"

And then we say:
"No, I'll assume that you meant something more like: "Pick whatever point on the continuum you like. At SOME point, some 'law-abiding goldfish owners' do something illegal with their goldfish"."

[iverglas]

15. more (ed.)

oops, posted under the wrong story. Moved.

[natasha1]

33. So what's the answer?

So what's the answer? Take guns away from everyone because they might break a law with one one day? Why punish everyone for the crimes of a few?

Nat

[iverglas]

34. I dunno

So what's the answer? Take guns away from everyone because they might break a law with one one day?

Why are you asking me this?

Why punish everyone for the crimes of a few?

Oh goodie. Let's pretend I never responded to *this* bit of disingenuous crap before.

.

[natasha1]

84. To get an answer...

So what's the answer? Take guns away from everyone because they might break a law with one one day?

Why are you asking me this?

To get an answer.

Why punish everyone for the crimes of a few?

Oh goodie. Let's pretend I never responded to *this* bit of disingenuous crap before.

You have, but I can never make sense of your response - you are so overly verbose. All I get out of your response is you want to impose limitations on my actions, and the actions of the vast majority of firearms owners, because of the actions of a few.

Nat

[iverglas]

85. now that's odd

Why are you asking me this?
To get an answer.
Let's pretend I never responded to *this* bit of disingenuous crap before.
You have, but I can never make sense of your response - you are so overly verbose.

I'm seeing some incoherency here. You want an answer ... but you can't understand the answers you get. Why ask?


So what's the answer? Take guns away from everyone because they might break a law with one one day?

May I respectfully suggest that if you want an answer to this question, you put it to someone who might know it?

That would be someone who proposes to "take guns away from everyone because they might break a law with one one day". Let me know when you find an appropriate person; I'd be interested in the answer myself.

Meanwhile, if there's anything at all that *I* can help you with, you just ask now, y'hear?

.

[natasha1]

87. See, that's what I'm getting at...

May I respectfully suggest that if you want an answer to this question, you put it to someone who might know it?

You have an annoying habit, in my opinion. You write overly-verbose responses, and when us mere mortals attempt to paraphrase and interpret what you have said, you come back with, "Well, I didn't say thaaaat!.

Maybe if you weren't so obtuse I'd understand you better. I honestly interpreted your position as being one that wants to take away guns from, or at least impose restrictions (I consider the later merely a stepping stone to achive the former) on all gun owners because of the problems caused by a few of them.

Nat

[iverglas]

88. wal now, li'l lady

You write overly-verbose responses, and when us mere mortals attempt to paraphrase and interpret what you have said, you come back with, "Well, I didn't say thaaaat!.

If you can come up with something I have said -- anything at all -- that this:

Take guns away from everyone because they might break a law with one one day

might be a "paraphrase" or "interpretation" of, you just call, and I'll be right over.

Maybe if you weren't so obtuse I'd understand you better.

You might find me/my words obscure, but if you look up the actual meaning of "obtuse", I think you might find a shiny reflective object on the page. That's one of the two options, anyway.


I honestly interpreted your position as being one that wants to take away guns from, or at least impose restrictions (I consider the later merely a stepping stone to achive the former) on all gun owners because of the problems caused by a few of them.

And if you want to substantiate this claim to honest belief, you're going to have to provide some evidence to support it.

Of course, given the apples and oranges you've mixed here, it might not be that difficult.

Hell, if I knew that you loathed oranges, I could perfectly honestly say to you "I honestly interpreted your position as being that you adore oranges, or at least don't dislike apples (I consider apples to be pretty much the same thing as oranges)", couldn't I?

Oh, and I'd have to remember to toss in that you adore oranges "because tea is expensive in China", to properly explain my "interpretation" of your position on oranges as you have explained "my" position on firearms.

In point of fact, I find that I am never able to get beyond the premises of any discussion about firearms control.

When yer talking to people whose entire repertoire of discourse about public policy issues apparently consists of "freedom! they're trying to take away freedom!", it just doesn't happen.

.

[natasha1]

89. Gee, I'm sorry...

If you can come up with something I have said -- anything at all -- that this:

Take guns away from everyone because they might break a law with one one day



And all this time I figured you were anti-gun. My apologies for mis-understanding you.

Maybe if you weren't so obtuse I'd understand you better.

You might find me/my words obscure, but if you look up the actual meaning of "obtuse", I think you might find a shiny reflective object on the page. That's one of the two options, anyway.

Actually, I did look it up before I used it ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obtuse ) but I agree, obscure is a better word. Obtuse fits, though:

- Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
- Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
- Not distinctly felt: an obtuse pain.

I find your posts as clear as mud. Decidedly anti-gun, but then you deny this all the time. Obviously I'm not on par with your literary skills.

Nat

[iverglas]

90. it ain't the literary skills that are your problem

I find your posts as clear as mud. Decidedly anti-gun, but then you deny this all the time.

It's the ethics. I recommend a remedial philosophy course or two for you too. No guarantee that you'll stop saying things as meaningless (what the fuck is "anti-gun" supposed to mean?) or false (whatever it means, the statement is a false characterization on two fronts) as this one, but it couldn't hurt.

Because I am so gracious, I shall assist in your education on matters more directly at hand.

Read post 90 in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=8916&mesg_id=8916

and post 40 in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=32630&mesg_id=32630

And acknowledge to yourself, if no one else, that you have no further excuse saying anything as meaningless or false as you've been saying.

.

[natasha1]

91. Come on, let's not play stupid, shall we?

(what the fuck is "anti-gun" supposed to mean?)

Only someone trying to duck the issue could say something like that.

You've made your bed. We all can see that you clearly enjoy sleeping in it. Quit trying to make like it ain't so.

Nat

[iverglas]

92. well there ya have it

The answers to all the questions were provided, available at a quick click of the links, and still the pretense is to be maintained.

It just wouldn't work to continue ascribing beliefs and words to someone when you have read the evidence that they are false, would it?

You've made your bed. We all can see that you clearly enjoy sleeping in it. Quit trying to make like it ain't so.

Is it the one that you've crawled under to avoid seeing what it doesn't serve your purposes to see?

I won't even bother suggesting that you quit saying things that are false. That would obviously be a complete waste of time and effort.

As if that hadn't already been plain.

.

[natasha1]

93. Iverglas - not anti-gun, just pro-gun restrictions

:rolleyes:

Nat

[CO Liberal]

23. My Apologies

They way you phrased Post #8, it sounded like another law was required to take action against this asshole. Thansk for clarifying.

[slackmaster]

24. I count at least five potential felonies under current law

1. Carrying brass knuckles illegally.

2. Carrying a (presumably loaded) firearm illegally; iverglas' hypothetical discussion notwithstanding.

3. Assault with a deadly weapon (brass knuckles).

4. Assault with a deadly weapon (firearm).

5. Battery.

He could get at least one year for each of those offenses. The DA will probably charge him with additional violations to gain some wiggle room for bargaining. Add five years for using a gun in commission of a crime. Add another five if he has a previous violent felony conviction; double the sentence if he's a "second striker".

[CO Liberal]

6. Researchers Analyze Calif. Hand Gun Sales

Looks like screening works. Now, I wonder if any of the people who attempted to purchase were brought up on charges? That would close the circle. - Wayne

* * * * *

Researchers Analyze Calif. Hand Gun Sales

Joe Rogers for KCBS-740 AM

(KCBS) Scholars at U.C. Davis found that California's system of screening gun purchasers is effective in preventing sales of hand guns to people who are not legally entitled to buy them.

"The system is working," Dr. Garen Wintemute told KCBS reporter Jeff Bell. "When prohibited people attempt to purchase hand guns, they're detected and their purchases are prohibited."

Dr. Garen Wintemute is an emergency room doctor who also directs the UC Davis Medical Center Violence Prevention Research Program.

Wintemute said the denial-rate is important for police departments, because that statistic correlates with the number of crime guns sold by the same retailer.

<more>

http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/05/02/Researchers_Analyze_Calif._Hand_Gun_Sales.html

[CO Liberal]

26. Girl shot at clinic in abortion argument (CA)

This actually happenned late last week. Since there was no "GITN thread on Friday, I decided to post it. I know this story was discussed on other DU boards. - Wayne

* * * * *

Girl shot at clinic in abortion argument

PALM DESERT, Calif. -- A 17-year-old boy angered by his girlfriend's decision to have an abortion shot her in the neck in the waiting room of a Palm Desert clinic Thursday and was arrested about six hours later when deputies broke into his parents' home, authorities said.

The girl was in critical condition, they said.

Witnesses said that about 11 a.m., the youth argued with the girl at the Women's Health Center about her claim that it was not he who had made her pregnant and about her decision to have an abortion. He then is alleged to have pulled out a handgun and shot her.

Dr. Joseph Durante, who had been scheduled to examine the girl, rushed to the waiting room after nurses heard shouting and then two gunshots.

The girl "was lying on a couch, and she was full of blood," Durante said. "I applied pressure to her neck, the right side; it looked serious. Her pulse was OK. She talked minimally but gave no information on the context of the argument."

<more>

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2542585

[slackmaster]

29. Sterilize the shooter

He'll never be fit to be a parent.

[CO Liberal]

30. He's Not Fit to Be a Gun Owner

Based on past performance.

[iverglas]

32. and apart from the unconstitutionality of that ...

What, exactly, will it do to remedy the harm already done? Can I assume that we all care just a teeny bit about the fact that a young woman has been injured, possibly fatally?

On much of the evidence hereabouts, I might hesitate to make that assumption. But I'll make it, and ask accordingly: how is it possible to care about young women being grievously injured by vicious, controlling assholes and not wish to do SOMETHING that might be effective to PREVENT it happening?

.

[slackmaster]

35. I was thinking of future potential children and future generations

What, exactly, will it do to remedy the harm already done?

Did I suggest that it would?

Can I assume that we all care just a teeny bit about the fact that a young woman has been injured, possibly fatally?

For that he should go to prison for a long, long time and be made to pay for her medical expenses.

..how is it possible to care about young women being grievously injured by vicious, controlling assholes and not wish to do SOMETHING that might be effective to PREVENT it happening?

All women who are attracted to vicious, controlling assholes could be sent to nunneries.

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

36. try making sense, 'k?

Can I assume that we all care just a teeny bit about the fact that a young woman has been injured, possibly fatally?
For that he should go to prison for a long, long time and be made to pay for her medical expenses.

Apart from the fact that a teenager in prison is pretty unlikely to be able to pay for a box of matches ...

Why don't you try asking the young woman in question, and a few other young women who are or have been at risk of being victimized in this way, just how much she understands you to care about her well-being, based on this comment?

.

[slackmaster]

38. My comments weren't addressed to her

Sorry if you don't think I'm being compassionate enough here.

[CO Liberal]

41. You're So Willing to Take Away People's Rights...

...except their gun rights.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

79. Pardon my knee-jerk rhetorical reaction to a grisly crime

For the record, I would not advocate sterilizing the guy. Just imprisoning him for a long, long time to prevent this crime from happening again.

And also for the record, I agree with curtailing his right to have a gun for the rest of his life.

So there, CO Liberal.

[iverglas]

81. coherency, please

... imprisoning him for a long, long time to prevent this crime from happening again.

What, really, are the odds that, if left at liberty, this guy is going to do this again -- follow this woman, or some other girlfriend of his who denies that he is a party to her pregnancy, to an abortion clinic and shoot her?

Isn't that kinda Groundhog Dayish? Wouldn't there have to be a hugely improbable confluence of circumstances, virtually to the point of an actual rift in the fabric of space and time having opened, for this event to be replicated?

So, given that it is so extremely unlikely that "this crime" would ever be committed again by him (which I'm assuming you meant by "happening again") no matter what was done or not done to him, how can you assert that imprisoning him for a long, long time would be either designed to prevent or effective to prevent it?

And why are you suddenly so worried about it happening again, and yet so apparently unwilling to agree that anything be done to prevent it from happening the first time??

.

[slackmaster]

82. Are you seriously questioning my coherency? Or coherence?

What, really, are the odds that, if left at liberty, this guy is going to do this again -- follow this woman, or some other girlfriend of his who denies that he is a party to her pregnancy, to an abortion clinic and shoot her?

Irrevant.

He's proved by his behavior that he is a violent mama-fletcher and should be removed from society so that he doesn't victimize any more innocent people. Put him in prison; problem is as solved as it's going to get. You can't go back and make it not happen.

So, given that it is so extremely unlikely that "this crime" would ever be committed again by him (which I'm assuming you meant by "happening again") no matter what was done or not done to him, how can you assert that imprisoning him for a long, long time would be either designed to prevent or effective to prevent it?

The purpose of imprisoning him is to ensure that he won't prey on innocent people ever again.

And why are you suddenly so worried about it happening again, and yet so apparently unwilling to agree that anything be done to prevent it from happening the first time??

To quote the Firesign Theatre, that's metaphysically absurd. I cannot go back in time and do anything to prevent this horrible crime from happening the first time.

What the hell are you thinking, iverglas? :shrug:

[RoeBear]

43. He must have done this because...

...he believes in the sanctity of life so much. :puke:

[CO Liberal]

46. Like The "Right-To Lifers" Who Shoot Abortion Doctors

Oh, the irony......

[RoeBear]

47. Yes they too

are sick twisted individuals.

[CO Liberal]

48. We're in Agreement There, RoeBear

:-)

[RoeBear]

51. Plain and simple they are hypocrites...

...I hope you agree that they are much like the anti-gun spokespeople who pack heat or the Million Mom Marcher who shot someone. They all have in common that they say one thing and do another.

[CO Liberal]

56. Or the Son of an NRA Official....

...who waved a gun in a road rage incident.

[RoeBear]

60. I'm not defending that incident...

... I hope he got the full punishment. But technically that's not the definition of a hypocrite.

[CO Liberal]

63. I'm Sure...

...he learned his attitudes toward guns from his NRA official father.

[iverglas]

53. and guess what

Here you may read the local gun nuts nattering about how the rifle used to shoot a doctor in Ontario who provided abortions could not have been an AK-47:
http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/Archives/Digests/v01n100-199/v01n119

I also doubt if many shooting Americans would recognize an AK, much less the "peaceful" people of Canada. Especially during the doubtless panic shock of seeing a shooting. So there are no reliable witnesses. Therefor no AK-47.

Ah yes. If no witness who meets our standards saw the thing, it did not exist. Strange physics there.

It is generally accepted that the person who shot the doctor in Ontario was James Kopp, who was extradited to the US from France last year to stand trial for (and then convicted of) the killing of Dr. Barnett Slepian in NY state. Given what we know about the firearm Kopp subsequently used to kill Slepian, there's really a pretty good chance that the firearm used in Ontario was what all those ignorant reporters said it was.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/02summer.html

Five months after the murder <of Slepian>, police found a Russian SKS military rifle buried in another hole about 200 feet behind the Slepian home. Ballistics tests showed it was the same type of gun as the killer used, though police could not prove it was the murder weapon. Fibers on the stock of the gun matched those found in Kopp's car and apartment.

It has been impossible to match any bullets or casings to the rifle, because of their damaged condition.

At a New Jersey house where Kopp had stored some of his belongings, police found a list of telephone numbers for pawnshops in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia, plus a hand-drawn map showing directions to the A-Z Pawn Shop in Tennessee, where the murder weapon was purchased on July 17, 1997. Investigators found three of Kopp's fingerprints on the documents.

The firearms registration form that the pawnshop owner signed for the gun purchase described the buyer as a white male, five feet 10 inches tall, and weighing 180 pounds. This is similar to Kopp's size. The buyer carried a fake Virginia driver's license in the name of B. James Milton.

Investigators have evidence that Kopp belonged to two separate gun clubs. They found membership materials for the clubs in Kopp's belongings. One of the documents had Kopp's fingerprint on it.

.

[RoeBear]

54. It matters not to me...

...what kind of gun was used.

[iverglas]

57. apparently it mattered to Kopp

He's the one who purchased the "tool" for the job -- shooting to kill, from a distance of about 150 feet, through a window, at night. Is there a better tool for that job?

You'll note that my post did not address only the kind of firearm used by the murderer. The ease with which he illegally acquired a firearm, regardless of what kind of firearm, suggests that there are perhaps a few problems in the system in question.

.

[RoeBear]

59. "It mattered to Kopp" only in so far as...

...it was capable of shooting accurately at 150 feet (50 yards or 45.72 meters), which would be almost any rifle, even a 22lr.

Sidenote: I typed "convert 50 yards to meters" and it gave me the answer instantly.

Edited to add: I probably should have said I typed it into Google.