HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Police: Body found at US ...

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:19 PM

Police: Body found at US park is that of gunman



In this undated photo provided by the Pierce County Sheriff's Dept., Benjamin Colton Barnes, is shown. Officials said Barnes is a person of interest in the fatal shooting of a park ranger at Mount Rainier National Park, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2012 in Washington State. (AP Photo/Pierce County Sheriff's Dept.)

Associated Press By MIKE BAKER | AP – 58 mins ago

MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK, Washington (AP) — An armed Iraq War veteran suspected of killing a Mount Rainier National Park ranger managed to evade snowshoe-wearing SWAT teams and dogs on his trail for nearly a day. He couldn't, however, escape the cold.

A plane searching the remote wilderness for Benjamin Colton Barnes, 24, on Monday discovered his body lying partially submerged in an icy, snowy mountain creek with snow banks standing several feet high on either side.

"He was wearing T-shirt, a pair of jeans and one tennis shoe. That was it," Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

Barnes did not have any external wounds and appears to have died from the elements, he said. A medical examiner was at the scene to determine the cause of death. Troyer said two weapons were recovered, but he declined to say where they were located.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-body-found-us-park-gunman-224005459.html

114 replies, 15941 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 114 replies Author Time Post
Reply Police: Body found at US park is that of gunman (Original post)
ellisonz Jan 2012 OP
seabeyond Jan 2012 #1
PavePusher Jan 2012 #3
seabeyond Jan 2012 #4
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #56
seabeyond Jan 2012 #64
Hoyt Jan 2012 #26
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #66
SteveW Jan 2012 #78
seabeyond Jan 2012 #81
DonP Jan 2012 #84
seabeyond Jan 2012 #86
SteveW Jan 2012 #90
seabeyond Jan 2012 #96
SteveW Jan 2012 #97
DonP Jan 2012 #101
seabeyond Jan 2012 #102
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #2
ellisonz Jan 2012 #7
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #8
ellisonz Jan 2012 #10
Post removed Jan 2012 #14
ellisonz Jan 2012 #15
Post removed Jan 2012 #22
ellisonz Jan 2012 #23
Simo 1939_1940 Jan 2012 #24
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #67
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #68
iverglas Jan 2012 #74
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #76
iverglas Jan 2012 #93
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #104
iverglas Jan 2012 #107
PavePusher Jan 2012 #5
ellisonz Jan 2012 #19
Post removed Jan 2012 #21
ileus Jan 2012 #25
Hoyt Jan 2012 #27
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #30
DonP Jan 2012 #32
iverglas Jan 2012 #40
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #44
iverglas Jan 2012 #52
rl6214 Jan 2012 #54
iverglas Jan 2012 #69
rl6214 Jan 2012 #70
iverglas Jan 2012 #71
rl6214 Jan 2012 #89
iverglas Jan 2012 #95
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #77
iverglas Jan 2012 #82
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #88
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #94
iverglas Jan 2012 #99
rl6214 Jan 2012 #53
iverglas Jan 2012 #72
rl6214 Jan 2012 #87
iverglas Jan 2012 #91
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #100
iverglas Jan 2012 #103
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #106
iverglas Jan 2012 #108
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #113
iverglas Jan 2012 #114
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #34
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #35
rl6214 Jan 2012 #55
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #57
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #63
Buzz cook Jan 2012 #6
iverglas Jan 2012 #85
rl6214 Jan 2012 #9
slackmaster Jan 2012 #11
ellisonz Jan 2012 #12
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #17
ellisonz Jan 2012 #18
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #58
iverglas Jan 2012 #73
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #75
ellisonz Jan 2012 #79
billh58 Jan 2012 #48
slackmaster Jan 2012 #49
billh58 Jan 2012 #80
slackmaster Jan 2012 #83
SteveW Jan 2012 #92
iverglas Jan 2012 #105
billh58 Jan 2012 #109
iverglas Jan 2012 #110
Straw Man Jan 2012 #13
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #16
Euromutt Jan 2012 #111
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #112
ileus Jan 2012 #20
Hoyt Jan 2012 #28
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #29
Hoyt Jan 2012 #31
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #33
DissedByBush Jan 2012 #43
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #36
Hoyt Jan 2012 #41
We_Have_A_Problem Jan 2012 #98
ileus Jan 2012 #38
Hoyt Jan 2012 #42
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2012 #45
Hoyt Jan 2012 #46
ileus Jan 2012 #47
Post removed Jan 2012 #51
petronius Jan 2012 #39
ileus Jan 2012 #61
ileus Jan 2012 #65
rl6214 Jan 2012 #59
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #60
Fourier Jan 2012 #37
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2012 #50
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #62

Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:20 PM

1. i am just so sad by this story. i know that i am suppose to be angry at this man.

 

but the story hurts so on so many fronts.

on edit. i didnt mean to come into gun forum. my bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:30 PM

3. For fucks sake, we don't have cooties.

 

Grow up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:31 PM

4. for fuck sake, lol..... it is a gun issue wish was not how i addressed the post

 

hence my comment not knowing i was in this forum. for fuck sake, there always has to be a for fuck sake.

what was that about growing up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:37 AM

56. There's nothing wrong with expressing sympathy for the victim, or even

the perp in some ways, don't be ashamed or shy.

Obviously this guy had some problems, I wish he had gotten the help he needed before he did this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:46 AM

64. that is how i see it. we have gotten to know him a tad better

 

but often in these situations i see it sad all around. he is so young. not much older than my boys. sad.

thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:06 PM

26. Yea, but you've got guns and carry them in public.

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:44 PM - Edit history (2)


"Cooties" might be better for society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:47 AM

66. Your record is still broken.

Issue had nothing to do with open or concealed carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:34 PM

78. MSM called him a "survivalist" rathern than face up to how he became a murderer...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2012/01/03/survivalist-found-dead-after-assault-rifle-rampage-at-us-national-park-86908-23676339/

I guess it looks more photogenic and fits everyone's stereotype that he was this rather new kind of "scary" type; I mean, describing him as veteran of multiple tours in the Middle-East who could not adjust is so much more cumbersome. You just have to overlook his dying in a t-shirt, one shoe in a creek during the winter.

I don't know what you mean by "...didn't mean to come into gun forum." Is there a problem you have with this forum, other than the quite sound arguments made by most pro-2A folks here? We are your fellow progressive democrats, not lepers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:03 PM

81. check out post 3. that is why i dont come into this forum.

 

plus, i dont have a toe in the discussion.

my position is, i dont like guns. i dont own any, use them, like them. and i dont feel i need one. i have lived on my own a lot in life, and felt fine without one.

my position is, i will stand up for all those with guns, their right to guns.

my husband owns guns, likes guns, is pro gun with laws, anti nra, with a concealed permit and carries a gun. his right. he is responsible. he taught my boys to use a gun responsibility.

that is about all i have to say about the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:12 PM

84. But here you are again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:17 PM

86. yes. and again... because in my book, i almost feel it rude not to reply to a person.

 

damn my manners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:37 PM

90. Okay, I respect your position...

But #3 wasn't too far off base in concluding that you think "we" progressive pro-"gun-rights" folks are not worthy of hanging around. I don't think that of people who support, say, "animal rights," though I may from time-to-time take issue with them.

There is, I believe, an attempt by quite a few gun-controller/prohibitionists to come to this group, muck up the waters (some say to disrupt), cast aspersions on the character of gun-owners, and otherwise claim they suffer from a shopping list of psychological flaws and "right wing memes." Then, seeing this, others chime in and agree that the "gungeon" is not worth going to because of the attacks and animosity there. I have no doubt these gun-controllers will continue to do this.

But ignoring the forum is to ignore some pretty good reasoning and argument and an opportunity to change one's thinking about the issue of gun-control and its rather recent "role" in liberal/progressive politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SteveW (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:00 PM

96. respectfully, i disagree. lol, i do mean respectfully. poster #3 GUESSED and MADE UP (as you are)

 

the reason i dont come into gun forum, by my simple ooops, didnt know it was this forum when i responded. you decided i meant you were not worthy. not me.

i even told you my reason, since you asked. i dont have a toe in this conversation. no position, really. nothing to say.

how do you get.... yawl are not worthy? how do i get pinned with yawl not worthy?

none of that has to do with me.

BUT, i can UNDERSTAND your sensitivity now that you have explained, regardless of you and poster #3 being wrong about my intent.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #96)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:11 PM

97. Okay, I understand now. Thanks for your reply. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #96)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:25 PM

101. Please accept a collective apology

 

Sadly we've become so used to newcomers arriving and doing a drive by posting, typically ending it with a "Oh Yuck, this is in the guns forum - I'm gone gun nuts", that we forget that some folks honestly come here to learn what's going on or to add a single comment to a thread they saw in the "Latest" forum.

Don't be a stranger in the future and feel free to ask anything that might interest you on the forum or by PM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #101)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:40 PM

102. thank you. what i have found does it is, i read latest page

 

for an interesting story, so i find myself in all kinds of forums, saying hey.....

forums i have never been in, on du2.

i am pretty balanced on using guns, not using guns, regardless of my personal opinion of guns. even if i disagreed, i am not into invading a forums space for jabs.

i spend time in feminist forum, so i certainly get what you are saying

peace..

oh, btw, you know what my FAVORITE and only show i watch on tv? i dont watch tv but first season hubby got me hooked on topshots. i LOVE that show. isnt that funny. but true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:21 PM

2. Thanks for the meaningless drive-by!


2012 will be another GREAT year for those who support the RKBA!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:38 PM

7. I'm betting you didn't read the full article...

Also, your post is very disrespectful to the deceased. There are a number of relevant issues to the gun control debate in the article. If I post discussion questions I'm told it's spin/ranting/propaganda - if I post nothing with it I'm told it's a drive-by.

R.I.P. Margaret Anderson - "The Thin Green Line"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:41 PM

8. Well then, you lost that bet.


And as for your dishonest insinuation that I have disrespected the deceased by calling your cheap appeal to emotion by it's real name,
I won't bother to defend myself. Your assertion is bankrupt on it's face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Simo 1939_1940 (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 09:11 PM

10. You're being trite...

...and it is not warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #10)


Response to Post removed (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:52 AM

15. How should other posters take...

"Thanks for the meaningless drive-by! 2012 will be another GREAT year for those who support the RKBA!!!!!" in response to this post?


"Aaaaaaaaaaaalrighty then." is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #15)


Response to Post removed (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:18 PM

23. Sounds like you just don't like...

...differing opinions and don't really care about the effects of those policies as much as you care about being even so slightly inconvenienced by gun control.

"Your side makes a lot of noise, but fails to put its money where its collective mouth is."

"Our side donates HEAVILY to pro-RKBA organizations."

There's more to life than money...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:32 PM

24. I don't have any problem with differing opinions.


All opinions, however, are not created equal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but an educated opinion trumps a willfully uneducated opinion seven days a week.

There's more to life than money...

No shit. My comment wasn't about money - it was about DEDICATION.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:48 AM

67. I'm missing the relevant issue?

We don't know how he got his guns. He had a restraining order, which may have made him ineligible for firearms.

Until we know how he got them, kinda pointless to speculate, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:51 AM

68. Without speculation....

 

...or fantasy, the anti crowd really has no argument. It isn't fair to expect them to deal only with facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #67)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:51 PM

74. did he have a restraining order against him?

 

According to the linked news report:

The mother of his toddler daughter sought a temporary restraining order against him, according to court documents.

... In November 2011, a guardian ad litem recommended parenting and communication classes for both parents as well as a visitation schedule for Barnes until he completed evaluations for domestic violence and mental health and complied with treatment recommendations.


Maybe there is something clearer available to indicate whether an order had actually been made. If one was made, why was nothing done to remove his firearms?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017153774_skyway04m.html?prmid=4939

Records show he'd struggled in high school and had been kicked out of his beloved Army — a loss that fed an obsession with guns, according to one acquaintance.

He lost his girlfriend to his erratic, threatening behavior and a close Army friend to suicide. He was under court order to be supervised when he visited his infant daughter.

... Barnes spent two years and seven months in the service ... . But he was discharged from the Army in 2009 after an arrest for driving under the influence and illegal transportation of a private weapon.


http://www.rentonreporter.com/news/136624058.html

About nine people were at the party. At some point, there was a “show and tell” of guns and at midnight New Year's Day at least two people fired multiple rounds into the air, according to West.

Just before 3 a.m. one of the men the party asked to see a gun belonging to another person. He refused to give back the gun when asked and a shootout started involving at least two people. Barnes was one of those who pulled a gun and fired.

Barnes and two other subjects left the house after the shooting. ...


This shooting into the air at New Year's seems to be quite the, er, fad. But I'm sure it's still one of those "rare" things.

No restraining order that I'm seeing; proceedings were apparently still ongoing. I'm sure seeing some risk factors that contraindicate firearms possession, though!

And you betcha that obsession with guns is one of 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:17 PM

76. 'obsession' difficult to define.

I will await more information on the case, hopefully we will get some solid background on whether he was denied access at all. He may not have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #76)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:46 PM

93. but ya sure do know it when ya see it!

 

If I may paraphrase your eminent jurist.

No, it wouldn't work to deny firearms possession solely on the basis of somebody's proclivity for playing with guns and taking pictures of themself with guns.

People who do that, though, may be worth a closer look by the people around them and the appropriate authorities, if those people would take the trouble to seek some official/professional attention to the situation.

Where the behaviour is accompanied by other classic signs of potentially suicidal disturbance -- a potentially suicidal individual with a bunch of guns being at risk for homicide-suicide -- a mechanism for at least temporary removal of firearms is entirely reasonable, in the opinion of a lot of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #93)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:47 PM

104. I agree.

In fact, I hold quite a bit of emnity to the parents of Jared Loughner for exactly this.


Worst of all, they apparently had insurance for access to mental health care, long after he was thrown out of college for threatening behavior.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/01/22/20110122gabrielle-giffords-jared-loughner-parents.html

So incredibly fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #104)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:44 PM

107. but you would have to agree

 

-- even if you don't like the idea -- that making it mandatory to have a licence in order to acquire or possess firearms would reduce the risk in the case of people like these.

Not eliminate it -- Canada will still have its Kimveer Gills and the UK will still have its Michael Athertons on occasion; no system is perfect to start with, and no system never fails.

Licensing systems still rely on humans: honesty on the part of applicants, to some extent; cooperation and common sense on the part of spouses and family members at the time of application and any other time; the ability of authorites to detect problematic applicants; etc.

But at least there are more opportunities to detect and then deal with such people -- and fewer opportunities for them to access firearms, once a system is operating that reduces both legal sources and illegal sources of firearms for ineligible individuals, and makes it less likely that eligible but problematic individuals have legal access.

Interesting article about Loughner; not really possible to form any hypotheses from it all, is it? And apparently nothing there that would actually have resulted in him not passing a NICS check -- or that could have led to any action that would have had that effect, e.g. commitment for mental illness.

On the other hand, a licensing system might have flagged him. You've seen the Canadian application form:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/5592EW.pdf

It includes:

PERSONAL HISTORY (New Canadian Residents and Non-residents, see Information Sheet)

If you answer YES to any of the questions in this section, you MUST provide details on a separate page. Add your name at the top of each page you attach. If details are not provided, your application cannot be processed.
A YES answer does not mean your application will be refused but it may lead to further examination.
If you have received a pardon for any offence listed in box 16 a), you are NOT required to disclose the offence.

16. a) During the past five (5) years, have you been charged, convicted or granted a discharge for an offence:
(i) under the Criminal Code or the Youth Criminal Justice Act where violence was used, threatened or attempted;
(ii) involving the misuse, possession or storage of a firearm; or
(iii) involving trafficking or importing drugs or controlled substances?

b) During the past five (5) years, have you been subject to a peace bond, protection order or an order under section 810 of the Criminal Code?

c) During the past five (5) years, have you or any member of your household been prohibited from possessing any firearm?

d) During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?

e) During the past five (5) years, do you know if you have been reported to the police or social services for violence, threatened or attempted violence, or other conflict in your home or elsewhere?

f) During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?

CONJUGAL STATUS (You must answer both questions 17 a) & b) or your licence application will be delayed)

17 a) Do you currently have a spouse, common-law or other conjugal partner?
b) Within the last two (2) years have you lived in a conjugal relationship other than with the person you may have referred to in question 17 a) above?

INFORMATION ABOUT CURRENT CONJUGAL PARTNER (see Information Sheet) ...
INFORMATION ABOUT FORMER CONJUGAL PARTNER ...

If the signature of your former spouse, common-law or other conjugal partner is not provided,
the Chief Firearms Officer has a duty to notify them of your application.
IF YOU HAVE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE CALL 1 800 ___.
j) Signature of former spouse, common-law partner or other conjugal partner ...

(plus requirement for the signature of two references, with the same "safety concerns" notice)

Those questions directly address known risk factors, for people at risk of committing suicide or harming others.

Now, we might say: who is going to answer "yes" to any of those questions in 16, if they really are suicidal or wanting to kill their estranged spouse, or hold up a gas bar?

Well, getting two references who aren't themselves criminals to sign a dishonest application could be a bit of a chore ... and in fact the whole exercise would be a bit of a chore, for someone who knew they were ineligible and lying (a criminal offence). A lot more of a chore (and probably with more consequences) that taking a flyer and lying on a NICS form, certainly.

There just isn't a huge problem in Canada or the UK, for example, with licensed firearms owners committing homicides or other crimes. Yes, a disturbed person whose family and friends are unwilling to acknowledge the problem can slip through - like Gill did in Canada. Or the system could fail the victims - as in the case of Atherton in the UK (and I find the police description of that case as "he said she said" appalling).

But overall, the system as a whole -- licensing and registration, and perhaps most importantly relatively stringent restrictions on handgun possession -- is very obviously a major factor in the much lower firearms homicide and crime rates in these countries. I'll offer that picture of spousal homicide in Canada over 30 years again as illustration.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/part-partie4-eng.htm

Chart 4.2
Spousal homicides by sex,
Canada, 1980 to 2009


Chart 4.6
Firearm-related spousal homicides
by type of firearm, Canada, 1980 to 2009


Something is happening there, and I think it would be foolish to say that the firearms licensing system is not part of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:32 PM

5. Yeah, so much for his being a "survivalist" as claimed in other forums.

 

Ran without supplies, lost his shoe running, couldn't climb a snow bank.... this fool deserved his evolutionary fate even before he killed an innocent person. Fuck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:29 PM

19. "Fuck him."

But protect his right to bear those arms at all costs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #19)


Response to ellisonz (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:52 PM

25. No protect my right at all costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:08 PM

27. You'll see guys like him in any gun store in this country. And you guys want him to carry in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:54 PM

30. And who are "you guys"? Got a link to a thread where someone said that?

Look carefully- it's probably near the ones where you told us all about those armed restaurant patrons you've detained...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:11 PM

32. I'm sure he hangs out in a lot of gun stores too

 

But remember, the "Hoyt Rules" say; "it's OK to make stuff up for effect if it helps you make a point."

I have yet to see anything from him vaguely resembling a point, but they are his rules.

Perhaps he'll tell us more about all the CCW people he's detained to help the police "check their papers" and now all about the gun stores he patrols, for the good of his neighbors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:26 PM

40. it's really quite clear, is it not?

 

The recent threads in the old forum contain numerous jubilant posts about how many background checks for firearms purchases have been completed recently, and how many applications for permits to carry concealed firearms have been submitted recently.

(I'm not finding one thread I'm thinking of, but someone asked what all this jubilation was about. The replies were to the effect of how glorious it was to see so many people exercising their rights. I always think that's funny, myself. I've never had that reaction when I read statistics about numbers of abortions performed, even though they represent exercises of the most fundamental rights; I don't get all gleeful when I see people exercising their right of free speech to tell lies to the public or vilify vulnerable minorities or portray abuses of women; and I've never jumped for joy when I read of someone exercising their right to end their life. But whatever.)

From what I can tell, the individual who committed this crime was not disqualified from possessing firearms.

What can I conclude from this?

Well, I'd say: "you guys want him to carry in public" is what I can conclude from it. Should I be concluding something else, and if so, why, exactly?

I don't know what that last bit of your post is about. Just another tacky bit of personal commentary based on nothing, I expect.



A propos of nothing in the post to which I am replying, and just because the OP brought it to mind:

?size=l



Posers with guns ... That's Kimveer Gill, who took his pieces to Dawson College in Montreal a few years ago and only managed to kill one person (although he did seriously injure a few others). Quite the resemblance. Of course, he wouldn't actually have been able to buy one of the other guy's weapons, or the big mag, much, I am sure, to his chagrin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:26 PM

44. *I* certainly wouldn't have wanted him to carry, as he was obviously deranged.

The trouble was, either no one alerted the authorities (see Jared Loughner), or he was actually found to be incompetent and the system fucked up (Seng-Hui Cho),
and didn't get him flagged on the NICS system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:21 AM

52. one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions

 

If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.

One of those really simple obvious things.

No one had alerted the authorities? To what?

There was an investigation relating to his mental status that was ongoing at the time in connection with a custody dispute.

I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn. Anybody want to start?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:33 AM

54. Being in a custody dispute is not reason to have firearms possession taken away

 

that's just nanny state to the extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:30 AM

69. there we go

 

Right on cue!

Now, did you want to address the actual subject of my post maybe?

The issue on the table is whether this individual should have had firearms, and whether anyone here who thinks he should not have had firearms has any ideas about how his access to firearms might have been restricted.

So far we have:

Being involved in a custody dispute is not grounds for taking firearms away - check.

Anything else?


By the way, being involved in a custody dispute is very very definitely a risk factor for using firearms to cause harm, and the presence of firearms is very very definitely a risk factor for the occurrence of violence in the context of a custody dispute. Just in case anyone might think that is a relevant consideration. (You may all feel quite free to do your own research to learn about this or to attempt to refute it, as it isn't really my job to be anyone's encyclopedia of social science research; or anyone who likes may simply ignore this assertion, of course.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #69)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:05 PM

70. Your quote

 

"I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn."

Then you move the goalposts:
"being involved in a custody dispute is very very definitely a risk factor for using firearms to cause harm, and the presence of firearms is very very definitely a risk factor for the occurrence of violence in the context of a custody dispute."

Risk factor, you said it twice, it is a RISK FACTOR but that is not what you stated. You said they "SHOULD HAVE their eligibility to aquire and possess firearms withdrawn". Big difference between "risk factor" and "should have".

"Now, did you want to address the actual subject of my post maybe? "

I am addressing part of your post, don't like it, tough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #70)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:35 PM

71. maybe somebody could offer a logic/rhetoric course here

 

It's quite entertaining to watch these terms flung around with such gay abandon - move the goalposts, strawman, apples and oranges, etc. etc. - in situations where they have no application ... but really it does get tedious.

You quote me:

"I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn."

but completely disregard what that was said ABOUT.

I was engaged in a conversation with someone who had said:

*I* certainly wouldn't have wanted him to carry, as he was obviously deranged.
The trouble was, either no one alerted the authorities (see Jared Loughner), or he was actually found to be incompetent and the system fucked up (Seng-Hui Cho), and didn't get him flagged on the NICS system.


My question was how someone could say they did not want someone to "carry" would propose that their wish be implemented, assuming, of course, that they did want there to be some means of doing that.

The individual was NOT disqualified by any factor currently applied in the US, as far as I could determine: he had no criminal record, he had not been committed for mental illness or adjudged mentally incompetent, and there was no protective order outstanding against him. The facts showed that he was involved in a custody dispute, and an investigation of his mental status was underway in connection with that proceeding only (i.e. there was little possibility of it resulting in either commitment for treatment or adjudication of incompetence, although someone could always have initiated a separate proceeding to have him committed, which might or might not have been successful -- but no one had).

I found the reply posted to me -- that the poster would not have wanted the individual to carry a gun -- rather pointless. As I pointed out:

"If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms."

If one does not want such an individual to carry a firearm, then presumably one has some ideas about how to reduce the risk of it happening. In this instance, I would suggest that what was needed was something to reduce the risk of him possessing firearms, really.

The only ground I could imagine was as I stated:

"I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn. Anybody want to start?"

No one was precluded from suggesting any other mechanism, obviously.

Now comes you, quoting the statement I made, that being involved in a custody dispute is a risk factor for using firearms to cause harm, and stating:

Risk factor, you said it twice, it is a RISK FACTOR but that is not what you stated. You said they "SHOULD HAVE their eligibility to aquire and possess firearms withdrawn". Big difference between "risk factor" and "should have".

Really? Not where I am.

Where I am, if this individual had applied for a licence to acquire/possess firearms, there would have been several screening factors that would, if he was honest in his application, have resulted in a licence denial. The application includes questions about spousal status and situation, and requires that the spouse be notified of the application; the spouse then has the opportunity to make submissions about the application. I can tell you with certainty that if the situation had come to the attention of the firearms officer handling the application, it would have been denied.

If he was already in possession of firearms, either legally or illegally, anyone, including the spouse, could have reported the situation to police, who would have investigated and realized that there was a high risk of harm, and confiscated the firearms immediately and applied for a firearms prohibition order.

Risk factors are, in fact, exactly what disqualifying factors for firearms possession are based on. In the US, they are very limited: commitment for mental illness, adjudication of mental incompetence, outstanding protective order (in addition to criminal record, of course; although this tends to be viewed through the medieval lens of stripping someone of civil rights, quite obviously a history of criminal behaviour is a risk factor for causing harm with firearms).

That does not mean that other factors do not present an equal or even greater risk. Someone against whom a protective order has been made in the context of a problematic family situation cannot be said to be at higher risk of causing harm with firearms than someone who is plainly just as disturbed or just as violent but against whom no such order has been made. The risk factor is obviously not the protective order, it is the behaviour or risk factors for the behaviour.

The risk factor referred to by the poster whom I was addressing was the fact that he was "deranged". And yet he had not been committed for mental illness or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

The alternative risk factor I referred to was involvement in a custody dispute. Not all people involved in custody disputes go around shooting other people. By no means all "deranged" people go around shooting other people, either.

So what have we here, when it comes to goal posts being shifted?

We have you doing it, if anyone. I was discussing risk factors with someone who had raised that precise issue, if not by that term. That poster obviously viewed a "deranged" person who was not expressly disqualified as at elevated risk of causing harm with firearms. I asserted that a person involved in a custody dispute is at elevated risk of causing harm with firearms.

Neither person is disqualified, in the US, from possessing firearms.

So, if someone seriously does not want a "deranged" person, at least, to have access to firearms, exactly what are we all proposing?

I'll be happy to entertian any proposals in addition to the example I offered. Obviously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:24 PM

89. Without reading that extremely long, extremely bory answer I'll just say

 

I am extremely glad I am not where you are, here in the USofAmerica we have rights and freedoms so we don't have to go thru crap like that.


Again you said ""I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn."

Are you saying ALL people involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility withdrawn or only men or just those that have the "risk factor" because your post would indicate you think that ALL people should have their eligibility withdrawn, regarless of any circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:50 PM

95. if you're not going to read what I post

 

I can't think of any reason to reply to what you post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:33 PM

77. That would be prior restraint, and it's something generally frowned upon.

Much like blocking Internet access on the mere allegation of copyright infringement, or that TPTB in some polity deem a source
unacceptable- a "SOPA for firearms", in other words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #77)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:07 PM

82. all prohibitions on firearms acquisition/possession are "prior restraint"

 

Next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:23 PM

88. Ah, but since it's now a protected right, a higher standard prevails

Like or lump Heller and McDonald, they are binding unless and until they are overturned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:48 PM

94. And sometimes, the precautions simply don't work. See one Michael Atherton, for example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/03/horden-shootings-killer-gun-licences

"Michael Atherton had his weapons taken from him due to concerns about his mental state but they were later returned"

If we are going to use one example to proclaim a failed system, why not another example to proclaim a different system failed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #94)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:17 PM

99. if what now?

 

Edit: after posting this, I realized you were incorporating something posted elsewhere into this thread; I have replied to your similar post in that thread so it would seem wisest to continue this particular discussion there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11725835#post4


If we are going to use one example to proclaim a failed system, why not another example to proclaim a different system failed?

Ah, I love your arithmetic.

You have one example of the system failing in the UK.

I'm sure you don't want me to start totting up examples of people in legal possession of firearms in the US annihilating their families ... or coworkers, or fellow students, or complete strangers ... or doing any of the myriad other harmful things people in legal possession of firearms (or who got their firearms from people in legal possession of firearms) do with them in the US.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

Select weapon=gun and you get 31 firearm homicides in England/Wales in 2011, 2 of them "policing" related, so that leaves 29. At a roughly 6:1 ratio, that would be equivalent to 174 firearm homicides in the US, where there have actually been about 10,000 annually in recent years.

Whose system works better to reduce the risk of homicide by firearm?

There isn't a system in the history of the world that could not be improved. The system in question in the UK looks like it needs some improvements, and the article you cite mentions some.

May I point out, again, that I consistently refer and have referred in this thread to reducing the risk of harm. I don't know by what measure one could proclaim a system under which there were 29 firearm homicides in a year in the population of England/Wales "failed", unless one were applying the wholly unreasonable standard of perfection.

That sytem failed to prevent the instance of serious harm to which you refer. Most likely, the large majority of the other firearm homicides were committed with firearms possessed unlawfully. If they originated with lawful owners within the UK, then the system failed, because someone was able to subvert it - and of course it simply isn't possible to prevent someone from breaking the law if they have the means to break it, i.e. legal possession of a firearm.

Careful screening of those who are permitted to possess firearms legally, so that they are genuinely "law-abiding", is the best way of ensuring that illegal transfers will not happen, of course. My confident guess is that very few if any firearms used in crime in the UK were illegally transferred, voluntarily, by lawful owners, let alone acquired through "legal" channels (by straw purchase, by ineligible purchasers who evaded detection, etc., let alone by unmonitored transfer) as happens all the time in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:30 AM

53. Where did he get his gun(s)?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:37 PM

72. why are you asking me?

 

You could perhaps hypothesize about where he got his guns, and then offer proposals for mechanisms that would have reduced the risk of him getting the guns.

We might also consider what might have been done to remove his guns in a timely manner, given that he had them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #72)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:18 PM

87. You posted the information about a shooting in Canada

 

since you posted it I thought you might know. I guess I should have asked where Kimveer Gill got his guns so it would be a little more clear for you. As far as hypothesizing about where he got his guns, I would rather have the actual factual information. My bad for thinking you might provide some useful information on a subject you started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #87)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:38 PM

91. pardon me, I hadn't realized the subject was changed

 

I had assumed the "he" in question was the person the thread is about; I gather you were referring to Kimveer Gill.

Gill had a "restricted" firearms licence - he was permitted to possess handguns and restricted semi-automatic long guns, for sports shooting, based on his membership in an approved gun club.

There were no actual indications of his problematic tendencies, other than the fact that he spent a lot of time in his parents' basement playing with his guns and knives and taking pictures of himself with them and posting them on the internet. (I downloaded and saved the whole collection before his personal page was removed.)

So he bought his firearms from a dealer, and his ownership of them was registered.

He is one of the reasons why I oppose any handgun possession (not ownership - owners with licences for sports shooting could easily store their firearms at the facility where they shoot), and possession of the restricted long guns in question, by members of the public. Another example is an individual in Toronto with the appropriate licence who took his handgun out drinking one night and killed a passerby on the street when he decided to shoot the bouncer who had thrown him out of a club.

You'll note that I have consistently referred to reducing the risk of such events. No public policy has ever eliminated the risk of any harm occurring.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/111026/dq111026a-eng.htm

Police reported 170 homicides with a firearm in 2010, down from 180 the year before. This is consistent with a general decline in firearm-related homicides seen over the past three decades.

Much of the decline in firearm-related homicides since the early 1980s can be attributed to a decrease in homicides involving rifles or shotguns. Rates of homicide involving rifles or shotguns in 2010 were about one-fifth of those seen 30 years ago.

Handguns accounted for 64% of homicides committed with a firearm in 2010, while rifles or shotguns accounted for 23%. Other firearms such as sawed-off shotguns, automatic firearms or other firearm-like weapons represented the remainder.


That makes about 41 handgun homicides in Canada in 2010. At the same rate, the US would have had about 370 handgun homicides, instead of the thousands it had. So obviously there is a reduction of harm associated with effectively restricted access. (Significant restrictions on lawful access result in greatly reduced unlawful access, since the number of items in circulation and available for unlawful transfer and theft is much lower, and the disincentives for such transfers and negligence are greater.)

Obviously, reducing access reduces the risk of the harms associated with access.

Harm will be caused with legally owned non-restricted long guns, too. Since people do need them for legitimate activities - hunting, pest/predator control - and since there is important personal and social value in those activities and so eliminating possession of those firearms is not reasonable (apart from being no more possible than eliminating most other things, since, as I said, no public policy is going to be 100% effective), those risks cannot be eliminated. However, measures can be taken to reduce those risks as well, with licensing, registration and safe/secure storage requirements, and public information and education campaigns, being the most effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:24 PM

100. I'd point out that firearms categories are not congruent in our two countries.

You have handguns, long guns, and restricted long guns. We have handguns, long guns, and class 4 weapons (fully automatic, short-barrelled long guns, etc).

Class 4 weapons are rarely (as in once every twenty years or so) used in crime. I suspect those that would misuse 'restricted long guns' would simply switch to
the unrestricted type- the "beer keg" scenario:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=362693

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #100)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:08 PM

103. go right ahead

 

I'm not sure how it's relevant, but I'll just correct you:

You have handguns, long guns, and restricted long guns. We have handguns, long guns, and class 4 weapons (fully automatic, short-barrelled long guns, etc).

Nope.

Your "class 4 weapons" would be the counterparts of our "prohibited" firearms, which exist only as grandfathered items in the possession of people who had authorization at the time that legislation came into force, with no new authorizations being available. (Also prohibited are large-capacity magazines, with no grandfathering, I believe.)

Our other categories are
- "restricted" (certain handguns - others, e.g. very short-barrelled and very long-barrelled, are "prohibited"; and certain semi-automatic long guns - others, e.g. the mini-14, are not restricted)
- not restricted (ordinaryish long guns).


I suspect those that would misuse 'restricted long guns' would simply switch to the unrestricted type
(I'm afraid your beer keg analogy escapes me.)

Indeed, of the homicides committed by long gun, some undoubtedly were committed by people who would have preferred to have access to handguns. Many, however, were family homicides committed with a household firearm, which is ordinarily a non-restricted long gun.

The main point, however, is that since a licence is required in order to acquire any firearm -- "non-restricted" does not mean "no licence required", it means the basic licence is required -- it's not as if your average gas bar robber can just walk into a gun store and pick up a long gun.

"Those that would misuse" any firearm, i.e. who seek to acquire it for the purpose of criminal use, are left to their own devices: theft, illegal transfer, smuggling, and secondary sales from those sources. (Assuming, as I do, that not many of them would succeed in obtaining a licence, or even want to draw attention to themselves by applying for one.)

Which brings us back to the mechanisms for reducing the risk of such acquisitions:
- mandatory licensing
- mandatory registration
- mandatory safe/secure storage
and campaigns to raise the awareness of domestic legal firearms owners of the consequences of non-compliance with those measures.

There still just ain't a whole lot we can do about the traffickers from south of the border, since their many sources and the wholly inadequate controls over those sources are just not within our reach ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #103)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:08 PM

106. I've no inherent objection to mandatory licensing, as it's used here in Massachusetts.

So long as licenses are issued under the philosophy "those that are not disqualified must be issued a license". It's not
the issuing authorities place to determine need.

Mandatory registration is simply not politically possible, as it as been used in the past as a prelude to confiscation of
previously legal (and still legal elsewhere) weapons.

Mandatory safe/secure storage- IOW, prosecute those that get their property stolen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=441559

Also a non-flyer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #106)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:57 PM

108. please don't put words in my mouth

 

I've no inherent objection to mandatory licensing, as it's used here in Massachusetts.
So long as licenses are issued under the philosophy "those that are not disqualified must be issued a license". It's not the issuing authorities place to determine need.


I have never said a single thing about "need". See my post #107 for the system in Canada, which is based on risk factors, and with which I am really quite happy. (I'd prefer it if something could be done to weed out the disturbed like Kimveer Gill or the criminal asshole like the guy who got his handgun as a sports shooter and carted it around to bars, in violation of his licence and the law. But I haven't come up with a practicable refinement.)

If one's concern is reducing the incidence of harms caused with firearms, one actually advocates measures likely to do that. One doesn't say one has no objection to such measures, and then go on to insist that the types of measures actually likely to have that effect be rejected. (I am assuming that you would reject licensing decisions based on the risk factors in question, as applied in the Canadian system; you can correct me if I am wrong.)


Mandatory safe/secure storage- IOW, prosecute those that get their property stolen:

You link to a post by a third party that has nothing to do with me, and you make a statement that you purport to be my words "in other words". It isn't. That is not what I said, and not what I meant, and you had no basis for asserting it was.

"Prosecute those who fail to store their firearms safely and securely" would be what I said -- mandatory safe/secure storage -- in other words. I have never proposed any absolute or even strict liability offence (e.g. that theft would be proof of non-compliance, whether subject or not to rebuttal) -- and I also haven't proposed that theft be a prerequisite for prosecution, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:01 PM

113. I'm sorry, but including "risk factors" as a criteria is entirely too subjective.

If you find this will impede what you deem to be effective, well- too bad.

The problem with the notion of "risk" that is that authorities have used it to simply deny anything they don't like- and firearms permits are simply a subset.

Denying access to public records due to "risk" to privacy? Ask the Seattle Police Department about that one:

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Seattle-suing-attorney-over-dash-cam-videos-136707268.html

Denial of parade permits due to a "risk" to public safety? Examples too numerous to mention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #113)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:16 PM

114. well, you may need to understand administrative law better

 

I'm sorry, but including "risk factors" as a criteria is entirely too subjective.

"Arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion" would be what you have in mind, I guess.

The Canadian system provides for a judicial review of denials/revocations of firearms licences.

The permissible use of discretion has been pretty thoroughly canvassed by the courts in Canada over the last two or three decades (much of the development having been in immigration law at the time I was in practice).


http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1995-c-39/latest/sc-1995-c-39.html

Firearms Act (Canada)

AUTHORIZED POSSESSION
Eligibility to Hold Licences
General Rules
Public safety

5. (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.
Criteria

(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous five years,

(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of

(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,
(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,
(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment), or
(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

Further information

55. (1) A chief firearms officer or the Registrar may require an applicant for a licence or authorization to submit such information, in addition to that included in the application, as may reasonably be regarded as relevant for the purpose of determining whether the applicant is eligible to hold the licence or authorization.

Investigation

(2) Without restricting the scope of the inquiries that may be made with respect to an application for a licence, a chief firearms officer may conduct an investigation of the applicant, which may consist of interviews with neighbours, community workers, social workers, individuals who work or live with the applicant, spouse or common-law partner, former spouse or former common-law partner, dependants or whomever in the opinion of the chief firearms officer may provide information pertaining to whether the applicant is eligible under section 5 to hold a licence.


Note that none of the factors in section 5 is a BAR to the issuance of a licence (as they are in the US, e.g. criminal convictions, confinement to a mental health facility). So in point of fact, the discretion granted here allows for LESS restrictive treatment than in the US.

Notice of refusal to issue or revocation

72. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization. ...

References to Provincial Court Judge
Reference to judge of refusal to issue or revocation, etc.

74. (1) Subject to subsection (2), where

(a) a chief firearms officer or the Registrar refuses to issue or revokes a licence, registration certificate, authorization to transport, authorization to export or authorization to import, ...

the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval may refer the matter to a provincial court judge in the territorial division in which the applicant or holder resides.

Decision by provincial court judge

76. On the hearing of a reference, the provincial court judge may, by order,

(a) confirm the decision of the chief firearms officer, Registrar or provincial minister;

(b) direct the chief firearms officer or Registrar to issue a licence, registration certificate or authorization or direct the provincial minister to approve a shooting club or shooting range; or

(c) cancel the revocation of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval or the decision of the chief firearms officer under section 67.

Appeal to superior court

77. (1) Subject to section 78, where a provincial court judge makes an order under paragraph 76(a), the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate, authorization or approval, as the case may be, may appeal to the superior court against the order.

Appeal to court of appeal

80. An appeal to the court of appeal may, with leave of that court or of a judge of that court, be taken against a decision of a superior court under section 79 on any ground that involves a question of law alone.


And then of course anyone may apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Does that all sound "subjective"?

The fundamental principle is:

A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm

and if a licence is denied or revoked on that basis, reasons must be given and the decision is subject to review. Judges are not "subjective"; they apply appropriate tests to facts of cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:21 PM

34. You should pick a better class of gun stores to hang about in.

And see a specialist about your remote viewing, while you're at it. It's nowhere near 20/20...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:22 PM

35. You mean mid-20's in-shape white guys?

 

Because thats about the only general observation you could make about the man if you saw him walking down the street.

I also see mid-60's fat black women in gun stores. Don't have a problem with them carrying in public either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:35 AM

55. dosen't look like anyone i've seen in any gun stores around here

 

but then I live in El Paso, TX and mostly see hispanic men and women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:38 AM

57. Well yeah...

 

You live in North Juarez - what do you expect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:46 AM

63. Project much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:34 PM

6. Well at least he took one of the "Jack-booted thugs" with him.

/sarcasm and a hat tip to Wayne Lapierre

Requiescat in pace Margaret Anderson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz cook (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:16 PM

85. a real person

 

The photo strikes me particularly because it could almost be me at her age. She doesn't have a funny ear and I have no birthmark, but the crooked smile, conehead forehead, her hair and eyes and nose and all the rest, even the sticky-outy eye tooth - my mum might have confused us.

Apart from that, she looks a genuinely lovely person, doing a job she loved.

Anderson would have been armed, as she was one of the rangers tasked with law enforcement, Bacher said. Troyer said she was shot before she had even got out of the vehicle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 08:45 PM

9. So in otherwords, words to the wise would be

 

don't go out into the frigid cold weather wearing only a tshirt, jeans and one tennis shoe or you will die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 09:25 PM

11. What does this "current events" post have to do with the topics of the Guns discussion group?

 

TIA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 09:44 PM

12. I would post discussion questions...

But some seem to disapprove, so I'll let you figure out the myriad number of questions this raises about the Gun Control and RKBA Group.

I think the picture itself is telling...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:42 AM

17. Yes, it *is* telling. It tells me that veterans need better aftercare.

It also tells me that if he'd gone berserk with a sword, we'd have heard nary a peep out of you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:15 PM

18. Oy Vey

"It also tells me that if he'd gone berserk with a sword, we'd have heard nary a peep out of you..."

That couldn't be further from the truth...such presumptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:40 AM

58. You know it's possible to post questions or opinion

without leading, smearing, or otherwise spinning the issue, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:39 PM

73. you say this, à propos of ...

 

... what?

The obvious question is still to slackmaster: how on earth could anyone fail to see the issues relevant to this forum in the news report posted??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:14 PM

75. This is a continuing conversation between myself and the poster.

Welcome back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:43 PM

79. A discussion question...

...by definition is "leading"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:51 AM

48. Just to point out

that the stated purpose of this forum is:

Statement of Purpose:

Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

So it would seem that "current events" concerning gun deaths by criminals and other violent individuals are well within the intended purpose of this forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:54 AM

49. The post would be a much better contribution if it included even a minimal editorial remark in OP

 

Even something as banal as "Guns are bad," or "This situation calls for better mental health care."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:45 PM

80. That may be true,

but I was just answering your question concerning "current events." The perceived quality of a particular contribution will always be subjective, depending on the views and bias of the reader.

As far as I can tell, the intent of this forum is neither pro-, nor anti-gun/RKBA. It is a venue where anyone can post views, ancedotes, statistics, or just news stories concerning the unique American culture of guns, and the impact of that culture on American society -- both positive and negative.

The tricky part is keeping the discussions civil and non-confrontational. As someone mentioned in another thread on this forum recently the "sides" represented here are, for the most part, the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:11 PM

83. People with strong views on any subject tend to be the ones most likely to engage in discussions

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:44 PM

92. In political science, the term for "strong views" is "militancy," like stuffing envelopes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:52 PM

105. I'll beg to differ

 

It is a venue where anyone can post views, ancedotes, statistics, or just news stories concerning the unique American culture of guns, and the impact of that culture on American society -- both positive and negative.

First -- and I'm not meaning to be difficult here, just clarifying -- the subject matter in this forum really is no more restricted to "American" society than in any other forum. The Feminists forum, for instance, regularly contains discussion about situations and issues affecting women worldwide.

Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.


The Second Amendment is indeed a US-specific topic; all the rest are global. And restricting discussions of universal issues to the bell jar of one society would not be helpful in this case, any more than it would be in the case of, say, discussions of health insurance and healthcare policy. That discussion, as it relates to the US, has to be informed by knowledge of models outside the US; firearms policy is no different.


As someone mentioned in another thread on this forum recently the "sides" represented here are, for the most part, the extremes of both ends of the spectrum.

I seldom find "they're both as bad as each other" to be helpful, and that's how your comment strikes me, although I may well be reading too much into it. And in this instance, I just don't know what the middle would be, or whether you are suggesting it would be the right choice, for instance.

What is the extreme of the "side" I'm on? Ban all guns? And, as my co-vivant would say if asked, line up the non-compliant and shoot them? (He doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about firearms policy, let alone talking about it, everyone will be happy to hear.)

This forum really isn't populated by a lot of people who take that position; those whom one does occasionally see usually turn out to be gun militant goats masquerading as llamas, with short lives.

(And yes, I can cite cases, if anyone needs them: Joe Steel comes to mind; unfortunately I can't recall the name of the most recent, just a couple of weeks ago, and its posts have been wiped from the slate. ... Aha, I love google and having a unique name of my own for searching, and a good memory; I found the traces of that absent friend: Uncle Omar:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x481267#481551
I could also name another, still extant, who had a remarkable and rapid conversion after his first posts here ... but I won't )

So that really leaves posters like, oh, moi, to represent the "extreme" end of the spectrum found in this forum. I'm such an extremist that I advocate
- mandatory licensing for acquisition/possession of any firearm
- mandatory registration of all firearms
- mandatory safe/secure storage of firearms

Oh, and yes, a prohibition on the possession of handguns by members of the public outside of facilities where they are used for sports shooting. (This I do advocate in Canada; and I have consistently worked and voted against the present Conservative government and lobbied against its repeal of the long gun registry here.)

I fully recognize the extreme unlikelihood of any of this coming to pass in the US anytime in the near future, but will still advocate it for the US (as, in fact, do some USAmericans), one reason being that firearms policy in the US affects the rest of the world, and in particular Canada, where I am. Were I in the US and involved in electoral politics there, I would advocate potentially achievable portions of that agenda within a political party, and probably work with community groups and coalitions engaged in other non-legislative efforts to reduce firearms harms. (Here in Canada I have not been actively involved in the issue because it has never been an issue -- until this fall, and the repeal of the long gun registry was a foregone conclusion once the rabid right-wingers were elected, and frankly, sometimes one just has to be depressed, look to the next election, and try to take a long view.)

To my mind, someone who opposes licensing and registration, let alone who advocates allowing the carrying of firearms in public, is indeed an extremist. (Certainly in Canada anyone who takes those positions is part of the extreme right wing.) So I couldn't disagree with your characterization of some posters in this forum as being at the extreme of one end of the spectrum.

Anyhow, I guess what I'd be interested in is what you characterize as "the extremes of both ends of the spectrum", and what you see in this forum as falling at those points -- and I'd be curious about where you would place yourself on it, and why. Otherwise, I think it's just too easy to say what amounts to "a pox on both their houses" -- although, again, I may be reading too much into that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iverglas (Reply #105)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:38 PM

109. Yes, you are

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

reading more into my comments than was intended, but then again I left myself open to that interpretation.

Based on your response, I would consider your position as a very vocal moderate in that you are not calling for a total prohibition of all guns. My position is very similar to yours, and my only real objection to the entire RKBA controversy applies to the "B" part: where and when is it reasonable for the public carry of guns? To my mind, the "K" part -- as in keeping a gun in the home, or a private venue (business) -- is perfectly acceptable, and is a personal choice.

My remarks concerning the "extreme ends of the spectrum" were mainly directed at those who are so convinced that theirs is the only valid point-of-view, that they resort to personal attacks and name-calling in order to "prove" their point.

My observation is that the vast majority of Americans neither own guns, nor feel a need to arm themselves in public. That fact does not make a valid argument for, or against, gun ownership, or the public carry of guns -- it just is. I believe that the pro-RKBA lobby has a ways to go before the general public in many parts of the country will be comfortable with the widespread public carry of guns. I realize that some pro-gun advocates will answer with, "fuck 'em if they don't like it, because it is my constitutional right" and the nastiness continues.

As far as the contention of "a pox on both of their houses," that was not what I intended to convey at all. I am merely pointing out that a calm, reasoned discussion on this forum is the exception rather than the rule, and that a distinct lack of civility is the most likely cause of the limited number of posters who dominate the forum on a daily basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #109)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:09 PM

110. I'm heralding a return to the days of yore

 

when we ... by which I mean me, of course ... posted all the time with reasoned, informative submissions on various aspects of firearms policy and firearms-related events -- like what you just responded to.

I've done it several times today. You might note the lack of corresponding responses.

I got tired of the responses I did get, and of pretending to believe I was dealing with people interested in reasoned, informed discussion, once I realized that in, well, a whole lot of cases, I wasn't.

I did figure once I got going that I'd over-read; thanks for the clarification, and the comments of your own. Now, if you can think of something we might argue about, we could always mount a demonstration!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 10:20 PM

13. The "Doesn't Get It" award goes to ...

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

... Bill Wade.

[div class = excerpt]Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.

"The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now," Wade said.

Wade called Sunday's fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010, but doubts that will happen in today's political climate.

That particular piece of legislation had absolutely nothing to do with what happened there yesterday. The man blew through a checkpoint and came out firing at the subsequent roadblock. Does anyone really think he would have been deterred by one of these?

He was wanted for another shooting. He was on the run. He was in full "High Sierra" mode. Would he have turned around and said "never mind" when he found out that guns weren't allowed in National Parks? It takes a very special brand of stupidity to think so.

Congratulations, Mr. Wade. You have dishonored the sacrifice of a brave officer with your vain attempt to score a cheesy political point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:40 AM

16. And a shotgun was used, not a handgun. The law was irrelevant.

Then again, we're not dealing with a group of people who place a high regard on verifiable facts...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:56 PM

111. Not wholly irrelevant, but largely so

The alteration to the Code of Federal Regulations meant that all firearms laws of the state in which the park is located apply, not just those pertaining to concealed carry. Under Washington state law, transporting a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle is illegal unless one possesses a Concealed Pistol License; transporting a loaded long gun (where, for purposes of the law, "loaded" means with ammunition in the chamber, in a fixed magazine, or in a detachable magazine if said magazine is locked into the position from which it can feed ammunition into the weapon) is always illegal.

Under previous federal regs, a firearm could be transported in a national park, but only if kept unloaded and not readily accessible to the vehicle's occupants. With the exception of CPL holders carrying loaded handguns, only the "not readily accessible" part has changed.

And of course, it's still illegal to shoot federal officials (and other people) in Washington, but that didn't stop this asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euromutt (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:17 AM

112. Stop bringing up facts like that

 

We all know that if guns were simply illegal in national parks, this would have never happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:31 PM

20. I'd like to have a saiga 12.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:18 PM

28. Why do members of "gun culture" always covet guns killers like this guy use?


It is amazing to me that people would even care what he used, much less comment how much they covet one.

Heck, within hours one guy here wanted to know the exact model of gun(s) the mass murderer in Norway used. I guess so he could get one just like it to fondle.

My all time favorite was the poster who wanted to know what was best weapon to shoot people as hurricane Irene approached New England.

Time our legislators get real about guns and quit coddling people who can't handle them, or who want them to spread like "cooties" (just using phrase I hadn't seen in years until one of the posters above mentioned them).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:49 PM

29. Still trying to get that moral panic going, eh?

By all means, keep at it- it gives you something to do while you're not practicing self-defense with a machete and bicycle wheel...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:04 PM

31. Just wondering why poster wants one of those guns so bad, and why in hell he would post it here.


There's always a gun culture member or two to jump to the defense of another gunner's insensitivity and obsession with lethal weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:17 PM

33. Admittedly, his timing could have been better.

Then again, it's no worse than the poster who claimed the ranger was shot with an "assault rifle" and the shooting was another example of why
another 'assault weapon ban' is needed.

I'd like a Saiga 12 myself, and have long before this maniac went on his spree. Others have said the same thing. I'd also like
a split-bumper Camaro, despite the idiots who regularly wrap them around trees.

That's the thing about inanimate objects- they're inanimate, and compel neither good or evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:05 PM

43. I heard "high-powered rifle"

 

When it comes to guns the press rarely gets it right, but the antis love to parrot their ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:26 PM

36. Probably because....

 

...we don't really give a fuck about your oversensitivity to objects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to We_Have_A_Problem (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:43 PM

41. That's the kind of gunner I know-- talking about guns and crud over victim's grave?

LMAO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:13 PM

98. Like i said....

 

We really don't give a fuck about your oversensitivity. I cant speak for others, but personally I like yanking your chain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 06:48 PM

38. I'd like to have one while they're still down 200 bucks from late last year.

They're down to about 500 now where in Sept they were about 800 bucks and really hard to get. I'd like to invest in one, rumor has it they're on the ATF's short list to stop allowing import.

If that happens an investment of 500 bucks could equal a 300% return.

Alas I can't get the wife to bite on another shotgun, I keep getting the old "you have 12 shotguns you never shoot now." line.

Good news is I do have the go ahead to build an AR for next falls hunting season. (It's for the kids. wink wink )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:47 PM

42. And they are popular among those who pose in front of mirror before shooting a woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:34 PM

45. And computers are popular amongst those who trade child pornography, run botnets...

or traffic in stolen credit card numbers. You've obviously got a computer, as you post here.
Hmmm....

See, I can make baseless insinuations too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 11:07 PM

46. But I did not go shopping for computer used upon report of awful crime.

Your buddy told us how badly he covets gun killer loves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 09:50 AM

47. gun killer ....was that his Native American name?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #47)


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 06:59 PM

39. It's not very nice of you to call out jpak like that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x439001

"Heck, within hours one guy here wanted to know the exact model of gun(s) the mass murderer in Norway used. I guess so he could get one just like it to fondle."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:43 AM

61. oops. lol good catch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:47 AM

65. naw...we've been talking AR'S for coyote hunting. oh and trading...

I have an extra 308 and 223 that a Dr here wants, he's got a 45 I want but he also wants a wad of cash in the trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:41 AM

59. The desire to own something does not mean you "covet" it.

 

If I want a new truck that dosen't mean I "covet" it, you just like using these buzz words because it's about something you have an irrational fear of and you hate. Maybe one of these days you'll grow up and have a real conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:41 AM

60. I live where two National Forests come together.

If some crazy nut is running around shooting people in my backyard, I want the proper tools to keep my family safe.

Fortunately, this is incredibly rare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:54 PM

37. May I suggest

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fourier (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:05 AM

50. What was that number again? ;) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:45 AM

62. Should probably replace Bill Wade with someone that has two brain cells to rub together.

Because clearly this lunatic thought, 'HEY, it's legal to go into the park with a gun now! I'll just whack a Ranger on the way, and I won't have to worry about breaking any laws'.


Moron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread