Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3801  
Old 01-22-2014, 10:20 AM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
"A San Francisco Bay transit officer was accidentally shot and killed by a colleague Tuesday as they searched a suspect's apartment to serve a warrant, officials said."
http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4737493

One officer's gun discharged accidentally.

?? How do guns discharge accidentally, unless someone pulls the trigger? I though modern guns had safety mechanisms to prevent this.
I have to assume that it was someone fucking up, either catching the trigger on something or having guns out and twitchy during what appears to have been a routine search. You're correct that most modern handguns are designed to not go off from being dropped or jostled or other handling accidents.

Most "accidental" discharges I'm anecdotally aware of are of the "keep your booger hook off the bang switch" type.
  #3802  
Old 01-22-2014, 10:33 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,454
nm

Last edited by DragonAsh; 01-22-2014 at 10:35 AM. Reason: dupe post
  #3803  
Old 01-22-2014, 10:34 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,454
More Florida craziness.

I suspect (he he) SYG won't help this asshat.
Quote:
According to police, Smith admitted jumping the fence into the apartment complex, armed with a .45-caliber handgun, where he said he saw Sanes “looking into windows of apartments as he walked past them.”

Smith admitted pulling his gun and confronting Sanes, and when Sanes tried to walk away, Smith said he grabbed Sanes’ hooded sweatshirt and tried to force Sanes back to his house “so the police could be called.”

Smith told police Sanes “punched him in the mouth and grabbed for his gun.”

“(Smith’s) immediate response was to pull the trigger and fire shots at (Sanes),” a report states. Smith said he feared Sanes was armed “because his pants were falling down” and his hands were in his hoodie pockets.


Also, this:

Quote:
According to statements by Smith’s girlfriend, Angela Kemraj, to police, the incident started when she saw a man in the yard on surveillance cameras and reported it to Smith. She said they saw the individual in dark clothes and a hoodie leaving their yard without anything in his hands, and climbing over the fence to a neighboring apartment complex. Smith then left the apartment and climbed over the fence. Two minutes later, Kemraj said she heard gunshots. Soon after, Smith came back to the apartment and said Sanes tried to rob him, without mentioning the shooting. Smith was detained at a home about four miles away after a manhunt. During initial police questioning, Smith denied knowledge about the shooting, and only later confessed, claiming he shot in self-defense.
  #3804  
Old 01-23-2014, 05:48 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,454
This past weekend, Connersville (Indiana) Police Chief David Counceller promoted his candidacy for Fayette County sheriff by shooting himself in the leg.

Hard to say if Counceller is even the victim of 'bad luck', since this isn't even the first time he's accidentally shot himself - some years ago -

Quote:
Counceller said he accidentally shot himself in his hand. "I was working third shift as a captain. I was unloading (the gun) to take it to the gunsmith and I didn't drop the barrel to see if there was (a bullet) in the chamber," Counceller said. "The shot hit my hand. That one really hurt."
Did I mention this guy is running for sheriff?
  #3805  
Old 01-23-2014, 08:17 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian
ETA: I agree that in this debate one side is driven by a fear of big black scary things, but it ain't guns and it ain't the gun control advocates.
More true than most gun advocates would like to admit about a very vocal subset of gun advocates.
I liked Michael Moore's interview of Charlton Heston. Once Heston got beyond "Because I can"(*) he moved to citing America's "ethnic" problem or some such as the reason for needing guns. Even the President of the National Rubbish-rant Association must have realized how damnatory that was, as he ended the interview immediately after.

(* - This "reason" is insolent, stupid, or both. When someone asks why I eat too much chocolate, I don't say "Because I can." )
  #3806  
Old 01-23-2014, 08:19 AM
Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
This past weekend, Connersville (Indiana) Police Chief David Counceller promoted his candidacy for Fayette County sheriff by shooting himself in the leg.

Hard to say if Counceller is even the victim of 'bad luck', since this isn't even the first time he's accidentally shot himself - some years ago -



Did I mention this guy is running for sheriff?
Clearly just another example of someone who lacked sufficient training. Nothing to see here...
  #3807  
Old 01-23-2014, 08:34 AM
Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I liked Michael Moore's interview of Charlton Heston. Once Heston got beyond "Because I can"(*) he moved to citing America's "ethnic" problem or some such as the reason for needing guns. Even the President of the National Rubbish-rant Association must have realized how damnatory that was, as he ended the interview immediately after.

(* - This "reason" is insolent, stupid, or both. When someone asks why I eat too much chocolate, I don't say "Because I can." )
Heston was no doubt alluding to black on black violence which is a problem in a lot of American cities. He walked out of the room when Moore held up the picture of Kayla Rowland. Moore is not a good spokesman for gun control, that was an ambush interview topped off with an appeal to emotion fallacy. Most of his movies contain some intellectual dishonesty of some sort. If anyone looked like an ass in that interview it wasn't Heston.
  #3808  
Old 01-23-2014, 09:53 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truman Burbank View Post
Clearly just another example of someone who lacked sufficient training. Nothing to see here...
He just chose to not follow the four simple rules.

Four simple rules which make it so that undesirable gun incidents never happen, don't you know.
  #3809  
Old 01-23-2014, 08:51 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
He just chose to not follow the four simple rules.

Four simple rules which make it so that undesirable gun incidents never happen, don't you know.
I gotta say two things:

One, the whole four rules thing is kinda like the electron orbitals model of the atom--you teach it to people as a placeholder until they're ready to get serious about the topic and then you teach them the more effective rules that work if you're actually trying to do anything non-trivial.

Two, as far as I can tell, most accidentally shootings are caused by violations of the four rules, and that's one of the biggest reasons I'm entirely in favor of mandatory training for firearms owners.

(two and a half: most of these jagoffs should be following the one idiot's rule about firearms--keep your booger hook off of the bang switch, morons. My 3-yr-old has better trigger discipline when she steals my Nerf gun than some people I see at the range, and that genuinely scares me.)
  #3810  
Old 01-23-2014, 08:55 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne View Post
Heston was no doubt alluding to black on black violence which is a problem in a lot of American cities.
Any serious examination of the issue will reveal that the inner-city violence problem is better described as poor-on-poor violence than with any racial identifiers.

Quote:
He walked out of the room when Moore held up the picture of Kayla Rowland.
Like a coward, I might add. Anyone who advocates for gun rights MUST be willing to face the issue of the tragedies that happen when idiots leave loaded guns unsecured, or I'm going to think them a moral coward.

Quote:
Moore is not a good spokesman for gun control, that was an ambush interview topped off with an appeal to emotion fallacy. Most of his movies contain some intellectual dishonesty of some sort. If anyone looked like an ass in that interview it wasn't Heston.
As a gun owner and advocate for responsible gun ownership, Charlton Heston embarrasses the hell out of me. As, generally, a liberal, Michael Moore also embarrasses the hell out of me. It's pretty even as far as I can tell.
  #3811  
Old 01-23-2014, 09:43 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
I gotta say two things:

One, the whole four rules thing is kinda like the electron orbitals model of the atom--you teach it to people as a placeholder until they're ready to get serious about the topic and then you teach them the more effective rules that work if you're actually trying to do anything non-trivial.

Two, as far as I can tell, most accidentally shootings are caused by violations of the four rules, and that's one of the biggest reasons I'm entirely in favor of mandatory training for firearms owners.

(two and a half: most of these jagoffs should be following the one idiot's rule about firearms--keep your booger hook off of the bang switch, morons. My 3-yr-old has better trigger discipline when she steals my Nerf gun than some people I see at the range, and that genuinely scares me.)
That's all well and good, but my point is that the "four simple rules" thing is waved around post-hoc as evidence of someone who should not have had a gun.

My point is that it is simplistic to pretend that these four rules are actually simple enough to follow GIVEN the evidence that they routinely fail with drastic consequences.

I've likened it in the past to something like not putting up protective barriers on the top of the Empire State Building and instead posting a sign that says "One Simple Rule: Don't Fall Off." Then, in the predictable aftermath of each tragic fall, we can just say "Well, you didn't follow the simple rule."

It's related to my larger point that the problem with firearms is the point of interactions with humans. Humans vary on both intraindividual and between-person levels in their suitability for handling firearms. Pretending that training or four simple rules or identifying the "mentally ill" will sufficiently reduce the butcher's bill is foolhardy.
  #3812  
Old 01-23-2014, 10:55 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
It's related to my larger point that the problem with firearms is the point of interactions with humans. Humans vary on both intraindividual and between-person levels in their suitability for handling firearms. Pretending that training or four simple rules or identifying the "mentally ill" will sufficiently reduce the butcher's bill is foolhardy.
Yeah, this is why I'm a "licensing and testing" guy, honestly. I want to be reasonable assured that any given gun owner has at least had some classroom instruction on how not to be a fuckhead with their firearm.

It's been my (anecdotal!) experience that what really seems to matter is one's earliest interactions with firearms. Most of the responsible gun owners I know were taught from an early age that firepower was something to be treated with respect for the consequences and risks involved--I wasn't allowed to touch a gun until I had demonstrated to my father and uncle's satisfaction that I was going to take it seriously as a casually deadly object.

Most of the gun owners who terrify me were taught that guns (and typically, other risky pastimes like ATVs with no helmet and trampolines) were, mostly, just plain fun.

Last edited by Zeriel; 01-23-2014 at 10:59 PM.
  #3813  
Old 01-24-2014, 04:46 AM
Dave Hartwick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Yeah, this is why I'm a "licensing and testing" guy, honestly. I want to be reasonable assured that any given gun owner has at least had some classroom instruction on how not to be a fuckhead with their firearm.
That would be nice, I guess. If transit police are like other California cops, I'm sure they had classroom instruction and maybe have to qualify in the use of firearms every six months. Didn't stop the accidental shooting mentioned. I can think of other instances of cops, who are presumably better trained than the average gun owner, shooting themselves or others in accidental discharges.

How long of a course do you propose and who has to pay for it? Gun owners, I'd hope. Hardly fair of gun owners to shift the costs of their hobby to people who might be greatly opposed to it. Ha.

Quote:
It's been my (anecdotal!) experience that what really seems to matter is one's earliest interactions with firearms. Most of the responsible gun owners I know were taught from an early age that firepower was something to be treated with respect for the consequences and risks involved--I wasn't allowed to touch a gun until I had demonstrated to my father and uncle's satisfaction that I was going to take it seriously as a casually deadly object.

Most of the gun owners who terrify me were taught that guns (and typically, other risky pastimes like ATVs with no helmet and trampolines) were, mostly, just plain fun.
And a licence and testing will fix early childhood experiences how? Maybe a questionnaire where if you answer yes you can't have a gun?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupid idea

Are guns a whole heap of plain ol' fun? Be honest! [ ] Yes [ ] No
  #3814  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:28 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
There is no rational way to incrementalize your way from registration to gun seizure without complete overthrow of the the Constitution. That just isn't going to happen, and those who pose that outcome simply aren't living in reality.
There is no rational way to incrementalize your way from registration to the seizure of ALL guns without stepping on the constitution but there is a way to incrementalize your way from registration to the seizure of scary black guns that were recently used in some high profile mass shooting. Its entirely irrational and don't think it would ever happen but that is the road that some of the anti-gun folks want to travel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
I love that Dumuri Ajashole started off by characterizing himself as somewhat in the middle on the gun rights debate, but ends up showing kinship with Kable and calling Zeriel a half a tard. Add in the hoplophobia bullshit, and his lack of perspective is pretty clear. Dude, you're about as moderate as Ted Nugent on this issue. Dumbfuck.
Hey, asswipe, I agree with Der Trihs about all sorts of stuff, that doesn't mean that I believe what Der believes, but when shitheads come along and tell him that we should outlaw abortion because God says we should, then some of my posts look like some of his posts. Same thing with guns. My position might not be exactly the same as Kable but when some idiots come along and argue that the AWB is rational and a good start towards sane gun control (by which they mean the elimination of guns in our society, without the hassle of repealing the second amendment) then some of my posts will look like some of Kable's posts. Kable and I disagree on a lot of things but if we are confronted by people who think that the way to deal with gun violence is to make it illegal for people who are low risks for gun violence to possess them and by people who ignore the value that guns serve in society, then some of our posts can look similar.

And yes Zeriel is half a tard (Elvis is full tard and you seem to just be a garden variety asshole). He is advocating for converting negligence into second degree murder. The only time we charge someone with murder when they didn't actually commit murder is when someone dies while they are engaged in a felony. Felony murder happens to be fairly controversial (mostly among liberals) because of the waiving of the requirement that the accused commit the murder or have any intent that the murder be committed, now Zeriel after several explanations about the various degrees of murder still thinks that a crime that normally requires both action and intent should be chargeable for negligence. Unintentional homicide can carry a sentence as high as 20 to 50 years depending on the state, but that's not enough for Zeriel, he wants to punish negligence with a minimum sentence of 20 years to life in many states, not because he understand what the fuck he is proposing but because he thinks that people who are negligent just don't get punished harshly enough. Now in practice, noone is likely to be charged with homicide because their gun gets stolen and someone else commits a crime with it. An intervening criminal act is usually enough to cut off liability but if you wanted to make it a crime to fail to report the theft of a gun, I don't have a problem with it.

You want to virtually eliminate third degree murder and impute intent any time someone gets killed, then you're just retarded. And thats what Zeriel wants to do. He wants people who leave their keys in the car (something that a lot of people do in safe neighborhoods) to be convicted of murder if someone comes along and uses that car to kill someone.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 01-24-2014 at 10:29 AM.
  #3815  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:30 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Then you might stop claiming otherwise, hmm?
Where do I claim that ANY fear of guns is irrational?

Quote:
That isn't even coherent. Again, the thing we want to reduce is deaths. Fear of death is, for a non-psychopath, very rational and normal.
I compare it to the fear of dying in a plane crash. Sure people die in plane crashes and when they do it is highly publicized and sensationalized so some people develop an irrational fear of flying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pteromerhanophobia People also die in mass shootings and other sensational, highly publicized events so some people develop an irrational fear of guns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

Quote:
Perhaps. But I'm sane.
The stupid is so overwhelming, you can't really tell if you're crazy.
  #3816  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:31 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
My state doesn't have a distinction between degrees of murder, FYI, so I didn't "dial it back" so much as "not really care about the distinction".
I don't know where you live now but at one point you presented yourself as living in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the first state to introduce the concept of degrees of murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_..._(Pennsylvania)

Quote:
Yes. We've been wrong for centuries on other issues, from slavery to gay rights, after all.
So you think this is like slavery?

And IIRC the gay marriage effort is finding the constitution pretty useful these days. That same constitution would probably find that imputing murder for negligence to be too draconian. You would literally be sending people who forgot to lock their safe to the same jail as someone who brutally raped someone (at least in some states), only you would be sending the guy who forgot to lock his safe to that jail for a longer time.

Quote:
You are apparently, given your repeated insistence that I'm "wrong", unclear on the difference between "I am describing the system as it is" and "I am describing the system as I want it to be." This does not surprise me, given your ongoing general lack of both intelligence and reading comprehension on the subject of this thread.
I'm not arguing that you are wrong under every criminal law as it exists today. Reread what I wrote. I am saying that you are wrong under almost every theory of justice and law. Your "system" would punish the negligent gun owner more severely than the rapist or kidnapper. Your "system" would impute criminal intent where none exists, even felony murder requires that you prove the intent in the underlying felony. Your "system" would get rid of the intent requirement for murder. You are trying to fix something that ain't broke by replacing it with something that is and probably violating the constitution while you're at it (due process and/or cruel and unusual punishment).

After repeated failures to read for content, its just laughable that you think that someone else is having trouble with reading comprehension.

Quote:
Well, your offense is noted. And wrong--it is not adequately dealt with under current law.
The entire judiciary, legislature and executive branch of all 50 states, the federal government, the district of columbia, disagrees with you. As far as I can tell, every jurisdiction in the world disagrees with you. Can you point to a single jurisdiction that has adopted this "system"?
  #3817  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:34 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
?? How do guns discharge accidentally, unless someone pulls the trigger? I though modern guns had safety mechanisms to prevent this.
Poor trigger discipline. A lot of cops don't get enough training with their guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
Thanks for making my point for me.
You have a point!?!??! Since when do you have a point?
  #3818  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:36 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
My point is that it is simplistic to pretend that these four rules are actually simple enough to follow GIVEN the evidence that they routinely fail with drastic consequences.
What does routine mean to you?

Are you comparing the rate of accidental gun deaths to the number of gun murders or the number of guns or the number of times people handle a gun?

Or are you saying that 700-1000 is a big enough number so we can call it routine?

Because women get late term abortions (past the 20th week) between 10K and 20K times a year. Are late term abortions routine? Or are they rare?

Third trimester abortions occur more frequently (~1000) than accidental gun deaths, does that mean third trimester abortions are routine? Or are they rare?

Quote:
I've likened it in the past to something like not putting up protective barriers on the top of the Empire State Building and instead posting a sign that says "One Simple Rule: Don't Fall Off." Then, in the predictable aftermath of each tragic fall, we can just say "Well, you didn't follow the simple rule."
What you are proposing is not putting up a net, what you are proposing is outlawing tall buildings.

Quote:
It's related to my larger point that the problem with firearms is the point of interactions with humans. Humans vary on both intraindividual and between-person levels in their suitability for handling firearms. Pretending that training or four simple rules or identifying the "mentally ill" will sufficiently reduce the butcher's bill is foolhardy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Yeah, this is why I'm a "licensing and testing" guy, honestly. I want to be reasonable assured that any given gun owner has at least had some classroom instruction on how not to be a fuckhead with their firearm.
I think Hentor is saying that training is not good enough, we need to get rid of guns because no matter how much training you have, someone somewhere will fuck up one day and accidentally kill someone so we should just get rid of guns
  #3819  
Old 01-24-2014, 11:36 AM
Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,613
There is some middle ground between a phobic response to guns, and a contemplation of the price we pay/benefits gained for our current gun culture compared to other countries that restrict guns more (Canada would seem to me to be the most obvious, closest parallel).

Last edited by Truman Burbank; 01-24-2014 at 11:37 AM. Reason: trying to add balance
  #3820  
Old 01-24-2014, 11:52 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,060
What we need are some sensible regulations about weapons. Like these:

Virginia State Legislature Bans American Flags On Sticks, But Lets Guns In
Quote:
According to Virginia Capitol Police, the groups were informed beforehand of the restriction barring sticks at permitted rallies, because they can be used as weapons. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s Gena Reeder said they were aware of the rules, but “certainly not in our wildest imagination thought that could apply to the American flag.”

While the moms tore out the dowels of their flags, capitol grounds visitors with firearms were ushered through the entrance. That day, Virginia Citizens Defense League and other gun rights groups organized a “Guns Save Lives” day. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that about half of the crowd was armed, packing weapons that ranged from handguns to assault rifles.
When tiny sticks with flags on them are outlawed, only outlaws will have tiny sticks with flags on them!
  #3821  
Old 01-24-2014, 01:05 PM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,245
You can have my tiny stick when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers ... so to speak.
  #3822  
Old 01-24-2014, 01:18 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truman Burbank View Post
our current gun culture compared to other countries
Other than meaning 'it's easier to obtain handguns in the US than in many other countries', "our gun culture" isn't a fair term imho. It would seem to imply that people who believe in gun ownership for sporting, defense, or ideological reasons are somehow fellow travelers with the criminal subclass who are the primary abusers of firearms. There are actually two gun cultures in the US, and they have almost nothing in common except guns.
  #3823  
Old 01-24-2014, 01:18 PM
Karrius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 525
Virginia State Legislature confirmed to be made entirely of vampires.
  #3824  
Old 01-24-2014, 02:26 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
There were over 17,000 accidental gun injuries in the US in 2012, according to the CDC's WISQARS data base.

Last edited by Hentor the Barbarian; 01-24-2014 at 02:27 PM.
  #3825  
Old 01-24-2014, 02:29 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
There were over 17,000 accidental gun injuries in the US in 2012, according to the CDC's WISQARS data base.
How does that compare with accidental injuries from other causes?
  #3826  
Old 01-24-2014, 03:10 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
How does that compare with accidental injuries from other causes?
I don't give a fuck.
  #3827  
Old 01-24-2014, 03:14 PM
Monster104 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Sneaking up behind you
Posts: 2,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
There were over 17,000 accidental gun injuries in the US in 2012, according to the CDC's WISQARS data base.
And how meaningful is that? Out of how many total incidents of gun use? Are gun accident injuries occurring 1% of the time guns are used, or .00001% of the time, or what?

17,000 accidental gun injuries in a year doesn't say anything by itself to support your claim that simple gun safety rules "routinely fail".
  #3828  
Old 01-24-2014, 04:48 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster104 View Post
And how meaningful is that?
It means that in a given year, enough Americans will be accidentally injured by firearms to fill a large concert venue or a Chicago Blackhawks game.
Quote:
Out of how many total incidents of gun use? Are gun accident injuries occurring 1% of the time guns are used, or .00001% of the time, or what?
I don't know. How many?
Quote:
17,000 accidental gun injuries in a year doesn't say anything by itself to support your claim that simple gun safety rules "routinely fail".
It means that about 48 people a day will be injured accidentally by firearms, largely in service to a hobby.

I'm comfortable saying that the simple rules routinely fail.

Bear in mind that this does not include gun accidents that do not result in injuries. For instance, each installment of the GunFail blog on Daily Kos includes incidents of "home invasion shootings," where gun fucks invade people's homes with their Freedom Ingots.

If you want to talk prevalence rates, odds ratios or relative risk and other means of describing and comparing phenomena statistically, I'll be happy to join. If you actually understand such things, it would make a nice change from the conversations I usually have with gun morons on these boards.
  #3829  
Old 01-24-2014, 05:07 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
It's related to my larger point that the problem with firearms is the point of interactions with humans. ...
So? Do you have a suggestion to rectify this? This is essentially a truism that can be applied liberally to many inherently dangerous inanimate objects.

Quote:
... Humans vary on both intraindividual and between-person levels in their suitability for handling firearms. Pretending that training or four simple rules or identifying the "mentally ill" will sufficiently reduce the butcher's bill is foolhardy.
Can you define how you are using the term "sufficiently"? What would you consider sufficiently reducing the butcher's bill?

Last edited by Bone; 01-24-2014 at 05:07 PM.
  #3830  
Old 01-24-2014, 05:28 PM
Truman Burbank is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Other than meaning 'it's easier to obtain handguns in the US than in many other countries', "our gun culture" isn't a fair term imho. It would seem to imply that people who believe in gun ownership for sporting, defense, or ideological reasons are somehow fellow travelers with the criminal subclass who are the primary abusers of firearms. There are actually two gun cultures in the US, and they have almost nothing in common except guns.
I apologize if you think that's an overly loaded term, I was trying to avoid that, and if you want to suggest an acceptable alternative term I'd be fine with that.
It might even be simplistic to limit it to two cultures, obviously there are a lot of factors. Most of the incidents in current news involve the members of the first class, not the second. That does not mean the 'sporting/defense/etc' people create the preponderance of "abuse", but they are certainly not exempt, either. Two hoodlums shooting each other is generally less newsworthy, I'd guess. Many gun users apparently belong to the first class, until they climb a fence after someone suspicious (or get out of the truck to stalk Treyvon), and then they frequently become members of the second. Or their children get hold of an unsecured weapon, or... Certainly our death by gunshot numbers are very high compared to other first-world nations.
I shoot, BTW, although I quit being a gun owner when my first child was born.
  #3831  
Old 01-24-2014, 08:00 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truman Burbank View Post
There is some middle ground between a phobic response to guns, and a contemplation of the price we pay/benefits gained for our current gun culture compared to other countries that restrict guns more (Canada would seem to me to be the most obvious, closest parallel).
Sure, there is a middle ground. But many of the anti-gun folks in this thread are not searching for a middle ground. They want to ban guns.

They have no interest in a cost benefit analysis of guns, they focus entirely on the costs and refuse to accept any evidence of the benefits.

I wasn't familiar with the Canadian system but based on the wikipedia entry, I think I could live with almost all of it if the various licenses and permits (including carry permits) were on a shall issue basis rather than a discretionary basis (there is a lot of minutiae about particular types of firearms being subject to different rules, which I haven't really taken a good look at).

I don't understand the rationale behind some of the rules but I don't see anything retarded like restricting rifles because they have bayonet lugs and pistol grips.
  #3832  
Old 01-24-2014, 09:08 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't know where you live now but at one point you presented yourself as living in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the first state to introduce the concept of degrees of murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_..._(Pennsylvania)
The hell was I remembering then. The last time I looked up murder rules, and I could have sworn I was looking at PA code but I apparently wasn't, it didn't use numeric degrees. Eh, fair cop.

Quote:
You are trying to fix something that ain't broke by replacing it with something that is and probably violating the constitution while you're at it (due process and/or cruel and unusual punishment).
What an idiotic argument. There's nothing about my proposal that violates either.

Quote:
Can you point to a single jurisdiction that has adopted this "system"?
Damuri, circa 1770. "Can you point me to a single jurisdiction that has adopted anti-slavery laws?"

As for your whinging about harsher than murder and forgetting to lock your safe, I've made myself abundantly clear. To recap:
If you leave your loaded gun deliberately unsecured, that IS tantamount to an intent to murder, in my book. Anyone who owns a firearm SHOULD know that they are deadly, and that leaving one loaded and unattended around people, especially children, is a vastly increased risk.
If your hypothetical bad luck Chuck doesn't lock his gun safe, that's ordinary negligence. He's not shown a criminal degree of intent to allow his gun cause random havoc.
  #3833  
Old 01-24-2014, 09:13 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think Hentor is saying that training is not good enough, we need to get rid of guns because no matter how much training you have, someone somewhere will fuck up one day and accidentally kill someone so we should just get rid of guns
Which is where he and I disagree strongly. Despite your idiotic attempts to brand me as some sort of hoplophobe.
  #3834  
Old 01-24-2014, 09:17 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick View Post
That would be nice, I guess. If transit police are like other California cops, I'm sure they had classroom instruction and maybe have to qualify in the use of firearms every six months. Didn't stop the accidental shooting mentioned. I can think of other instances of cops, who are presumably better trained than the average gun owner, shooting themselves or others in accidental discharges.
Everything I've seen suggests that the average cop is required to fire around an order of magnitude fewer rounds per year than the average recreational shooter of my experience. I also do not see a lot of training for cops on when to draw, trigger discipline, etc, the published materials I see are mostly how to put rounds in the center ring of a stationary target. "Qualifying" tends to mean at most four dozen shots at a stationary target per year.

Quote:
How long of a course do you propose and who has to pay for it? Gun owners, I'd hope. Hardly fair of gun owners to shift the costs of their hobby to people who might be greatly opposed to it. Ha.
I'd expect it to be the same as the DMV. Reasonable rates, in other words, with higher rates for specialist stuff like handgun training/licensing (I analogize that to motorcycle licensing).

And a licence and testing will fix early childhood experiences how? Maybe a questionnaire where if you answer yes you can't have a gun?[/QUOTE]

I'm not denying we have a gun culture problem in this country. I don't know that there is a magic solution.
  #3835  
Old 01-24-2014, 09:50 PM
Monster104 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Sneaking up behind you
Posts: 2,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
It means that in a given year, enough Americans will be accidentally injured by firearms to fill a large concert venue or a Chicago Blackhawks game.
And...so what? By itself, that is fairly meaningless, and is a likely insignificant fraction compared to the number of people who use/handle/interact with firearms without incident on an annual basis. And it is absurdly insignificant number compared to the top 20 causes of accidental non-fatal injuries.

Quote:
I don't know. How many?
I don't know. You're the one trying to use the 17,000 number as some kind of significant point to back up your argument without providing anything to compare it to in order to demonstrate that simple gun safety rules "routinely fail", so why don't you tell us.

Quote:
It means that about 48 people a day will be injured accidentally by firearms, largely in service to a hobby.
Again, go ahead and demonstrate the significance. Over 100,000 kids under 18 are sent to the emergency room each year for accidental skateboarding injuries. So over 273 kids will go to the emergency room every day, largely in service of recreational activity. And that's just kids, not the whole skateboarding population.

So, why do you single accidental gun injuries for such scrutiny and claims about the simple safety rules when they're an insignificant number of injuries in comparison to the rest of real life, and are also at rates/probabilities that are likely less (I'm comfortable saying this!) than at least some of the most common causes of accidental injuries?

Quote:
I'm comfortable saying that the simple rules routinely fail.
For which you have yet to demonstrate any actual basis for saying such.

Quote:
Bear in mind that this does not include gun accidents that do not result in injuries. For instance, each installment of the GunFail blog on Daily Kos includes incidents of "home invasion shootings," where gun fucks invade people's homes with their Freedom Ingots.
So, can you demonstrate that including these would amount to an actually meaningful number of incidents that would actually help support your argument? Or are you also going to handwave that too based on how arbitrarily comfortable you feel with it?

Quote:
If you want to talk prevalence rates, odds ratios or relative risk and other means of describing and comparing phenomena statistically, I'll be happy to join. If you actually understand such things, it would make a nice change from the conversations I usually have with gun morons on these boards.
Given your response to Lumpy, you don't seem to give a fuck how the number of accidental gun injuries actually stacks up to the rest of the real world in regards to relative risk and prevalence rates, you think 17,000 by itself is enough for your claim that simple gun safety rules routinely fail - even though you've haven't actually demonstrated as much.

Last edited by Monster104; 01-24-2014 at 09:54 PM.
  #3836  
Old 01-25-2014, 12:37 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
What an idiotic argument. There's nothing about my proposal that violates either.
IIRC these sort of draconian punishments violate cruel and unusual punishment as well as due process. The punishment is not only grossly disproportionate to the crime, the punishment is unfair when compared to more severe crimes that have lighter sentences (see mandatory sentencing for crack versus cocaine). Its not just my opinion that rape is worse than accidentally shooting someone while cleaning your gun in terms of criminal liability, is it? Crimes usually have at least one of two requirements intent and action. When you say that we will convict someone of second degree murder for failure to notify police that their gun stolen (and the gun was later used by someone else to commit murder), then you are eliminating both elements. They did not actually commit the crime and they did not have intent. The closest you can get is felony murder and there we have the notion of transferred intent between co-conspirators to a crime. Its been a long time since law school but what you are proposing is so far outside the ballpark that you really need to think about this more before you keep insisting that this is a reasonable solution to anything.

Quote:
Damuri, circa 1770. "Can you point me to a single jurisdiction that has adopted anti-slavery laws?
There were plenty of anti-slavery laws in 1770 and philosophical objections to slavery have existed as long as slavery has existed. Not so with your idea, its a bad idea, we all get them from time to time.

And do you really want to compare the criminal liability laws of our time with slavery?

Quote:
As for your whinging about harsher than murder and forgetting to lock your safe, I've made myself abundantly clear. To recap:
If you leave your loaded gun deliberately unsecured, that IS tantamount to an intent to murder, in my book.
And your book is ignorant of legal theory and history.

Quote:
Anyone who owns a firearm SHOULD know that they are deadly, and that leaving one loaded and unattended around people, especially children, is a vastly increased risk.
And we already have crimes that can result in 50 year sentences for that sort of thing. Isn't 50 years enough for you (20 years in many jurisdictions)?

Quote:
If your hypothetical bad luck Chuck doesn't lock his gun safe, that's ordinary negligence. He's not shown a criminal degree of intent to allow his gun cause random havoc.
You haven't got intent in EITHER case. You may have gross negligence in the first case but I always understood your standard to be strict liability, not "if they're really really reckless and irresponsible" IIRC, you wanted to throw the book at the guy that was carrying his gun Mexican style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Which is where he and I disagree strongly. Despite your idiotic attempts to brand me as some sort of hoplophobe.
I don't think you and Hentor have the same position. Hentor isn't searching for the right answer, he is searching for HIS answer. My problem with you is that you have decided that this drastic change in our legal system and how we determine criminal liability is the answer to something. Your idea will have consequences for the entire legal system, a reasonably well balanced system that we have developed over centuries.
  #3837  
Old 01-25-2014, 05:11 AM
Fear Itself is offline
One of Cecil's six friends
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Crimes usually have at least one of two requirements intent and action. .
You keep trying to convince yourself of this, yet it is completely wrong. Negligent homicide is a crime, and has no element of intent at all.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
__________________
“If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.” ~~Jack Handey
  #3838  
Old 01-25-2014, 09:17 AM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster104 View Post
And...so what? By itself, that is fairly meaningless...
This is really all you need to say, because it is the crux of the issue. Gun douchebags are so fixated on their amulets that they readily consign any victims of their anti-anxiety placebo object to meaningless status.

The reason why I don't give a fuck about Lumpy's interjection is that I've been down the "pools/cars/skateboards" argument dozens of times. In terms of straight comparisons like relative risk, the issue is - in part - the denominator. You seem, so far anyway, to understand that much at least. Our problem will be that the denominator isn't known, and I assume that it's rather low.

The second issue is going to be what that denominator represents. I say that it largely consists of hobby activities and, as I said above, a placebo that people use to self-medicate problems with anxiety. In other words, most of the gun douchebags in our country are just pissing themselves with fear and have guns so that they can shoot kids who are just turning around in their driveway, are coming to their door for help, or who are their own kids sneaking back into their house.

This second issue is a matter of the relative value of the activities that feed into the denominator. I'm going to estimate their value as low; I anticipate that you're going to estimate the value as high. I anticipate this because you're ready to dismiss the butcher's bill as insignificant.

Finally, comparisons to pools, skateboards and other similar sources of potential injury or death are fraught with limitations as analogies because firearms pose markedly distinct differences. Most prominently, people are far less likely to end up injuring bystanders with pools or skateboards. A person isn't going to drop their skateboard in church in such a fashion that it sends a projectile into someone else's leg. Additionally, the approximately 17,000 figure represents accidental injuries associated with firearms. It doesn't include intentional injuries and it doesn't include deaths. There were over 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries of any intent in 2012. And of course, that doesn't include the approximately 30,000 fatal incidents involving firearms.

Gunfucks dismiss this figure as insignificant because they need it to be. It would be nice to see just a touch of humanity in their consideration of the issue, but they cannot even voice a desire to see that be lower because it's a threat. The power of fear is great, and people respond with desperation when one suggests they face a fear without the rituals they have come to develop to fend them off. This is true even when the person recognizes that the ritual is itself maladaptive.

Last edited by Hentor the Barbarian; 01-25-2014 at 09:17 AM.
  #3839  
Old 01-25-2014, 10:23 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
The second issue is going to be what that denominator represents. I say that it largely consists of hobby activities and, as I said above, a placebo that people use to self-medicate problems with anxiety. In other words, most of the gun douchebags in our country are just pissing themselves with fear and have guns so that they can shoot kids who are just turning around in their driveway, are coming to their door for help, or who are their own kids sneaking back into their house.
In other words, your position in this debate is based on a derogatory caricature of the other side. 'Nuff said.
  #3840  
Old 01-25-2014, 10:49 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,295
Why aren't you claiming yourself to be a .... um, what would be the word? ... hoplophile, yes, that's it. Something like a pedophile but with a different fixation.
  #3841  
Old 01-25-2014, 11:10 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
You keep trying to convince yourself of this, yet it is completely wrong. Negligent homicide is a crime, and has no element of intent at all.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
Did you read the part where I wrote (and you quoted) that it usually requires "one of two"?
  #3842  
Old 01-25-2014, 11:39 AM
Monster104 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Sneaking up behind you
Posts: 2,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
This is really all you need to say, because it is the crux of the issue. Gun douchebags are so fixated on their amulets that they readily consign any victims of their anti-anxiety placebo object to meaningless status.
You dumbass, I said BY ITSELF the number is meaningless, because IN CONTEXT that number BY ITSELF doesn't do a damn thing to support your claim that simple gun safety rules "routinely fail".

But no, rather than address it like an honest person, instead you take the typical anti-gun extremist route, and twist things around to avoid having to face the truth of what I posted. You are simply intellectually dishonest because you are an extremist on this issue.

Quote:
The reason why I don't give a fuck about Lumpy's interjection is that I've been down the "pools/cars/skateboards" argument dozens of times.
I bet you've never once actually addressed those arguments head on, rebutted any of their points, and instead danced around it like you are here.

Quote:
In terms of straight comparisons like relative risk, the issue is - in part - the denominator. You seem, so far anyway, to understand that much at least. Our problem will be that the denominator isn't known, and I assume that it's rather low.
Aaaaand there's your first problem. You make a sweeping matter of fact claim...using a baseless assumption as its foundation. What reason do you have to support your assumption that the denominator is "rather low"?

Frankly, I can't see any valid reason for it. There is going to be well over 1 million people every day handling/interacting with firearms, just going by numbers of armed police and security guards in the country. There are something like 30-40 million people who go hunting every year. Millions more who just go target shooting (NSSF analysis says roughly 40 million target shooters per year). Then there are all the niche shooting sports, which at this point the number of them doesn't even matter because I've made my point - that 48 injuries a day/17,000 a year is truly a wholly insignificant number in comparison. It is just laughable that you think 48/day, 17,000/year by itself shows simple gun safety rules "routinely fail", and that it represents a good justification for more gun control.

Quote:
The second issue is going to be what that denominator represents. I say that it largely consists of hobby activities and, as I said above, a placebo that people use to self-medicate problems with anxiety.
More assumptions and blatant anti-gun owner extremism. You've got nothing substantial supporting you so far. I've already demonstrated that the number of daily professional gun users by themselves shows that the number of accidental gun injuries is amazingly low in comparison. Add in all the hobbyists you go on and on about, and the accidental gun injury rate drops even more significantly.

In other words, you've still got nothing to support your claim or arguments.

Quote:
In other words, most of the gun douchebags in our country are just pissing themselves with fear
Says the one ignorantly and baselessly promulgating fears about hobbyist gun owners and the supposed ineffectiveness of gun safety rules (which I've shown to be a crock of shit).

Quote:
and have guns so that they can shoot kids who are just turning around in their driveway, are coming to their door for help, or who are their own kids sneaking back into their house.
Incidents which are absurdly rare, both statistically and in hard numbers.

Quote:
This second issue is a matter of the relative value of the activities that feed into the denominator. I'm going to estimate their value as low; I anticipate that you're going to estimate the value as high. I anticipate this because you're ready to dismiss the butcher's bill as insignificant.
Well, of course you're going to estimate their value as low, because you are an extremist who doesn't actually care whether your assumptions are valid or not, you just care about trying to make things look as bad as possible for guns and gun owners and will make your assumptions accordingly.

Me, I prefer having actual information. Target shooting in America added $23 billion to the nation's economic activity, and supported 185,000 jobs. Combined with Hunting in America, recreational gun users in these two categories alone added over $110 billion to the economy and supported more than 866,000 jobs. And this is where the majority of the money for nature conservation efforts comes from as well.

So, factually, the value of the activities that feed into the denominator are demonstrably not "low".

Quote:
Finally, comparisons to pools, skateboards and other similar sources of potential injury or death are fraught with limitations as analogies because firearms pose markedly distinct differences. Most prominently, people are far less likely to end up injuring bystanders with pools or skateboards.
And yet it still remains the case that an order of magnitude more people are sent to the ER each year because of skateboard accidents, than gun accidents, largely in service to recreational activity. Your minor point about being less likely to injure others doesn't change the fact that accidental gun injuries are still an comparatively insignificant issue that rarely happens relative to the prevalence of gun usage.

Quote:
A person isn't going to drop their skateboard in church in such a fashion that it sends a projectile into someone else's leg.
So what? That is irrelevant to a comparison of number of injuries that show how relatively rare an accidental gun injury is in comparison, and it certainly does nothing to support your claim that simple gun safety rules "routinely fail".

Quote:
Additionally, the approximately 17,000 figure represents accidental injuries associated with firearms. It doesn't include intentional injuries and it doesn't include deaths. There were over 80,000 non-fatal firearm injuries of any intent in 2012. And of course, that doesn't include the approximately 30,000 fatal incidents involving firearms.
So you're gonna shift the goal posts to avoid having to support your claim that simple gun safety rules "routinely fail"? Talk about completely breaking the context as well.

Quote:
Gunfucks dismiss this figure as insignificant because they need it to be. It would be nice to see just a touch of humanity in their consideration of the issue, but they cannot even voice a desire to see that be lower because it's a threat. The power of fear is great, and people respond with desperation when one suggests they face a fear without the rituals they have come to develop to fend them off. This is true even when the person recognizes that the ritual is itself maladaptive.
Oh yes, "gunfucks" dismiss that figure as insignificant because they need it to be....oh wait, I almost forgot that I factually demonstrated in this post that your dumbass belief is absolute bullshit. That figure IS insignificant, because something that occurs something like .0001% of the time or so (and is probably even less than that) is pretty much the definition of insignificant. I would like it to be lower, but it may be completely unfeasible to actually do so in reality. But you are stuck in an unwavering anti-gun la-la-land, and pretty much nothing you and other anti-gun extremists have proposed would make any meaningful dent in that number, because gun accidents are already trivially rare compared to the prevalence of gun usage/interaction on a daily/annual basis.

Gun accidents are so rare (as I have demonstrated) despite the prevalence of gun usage and gun owners because gun owners are already overwhelmingly safe with their guns, precisely because of simple gun safety rules which routinely prevent accidents from occurring.

Last edited by Monster104; 01-25-2014 at 11:43 AM.
  #3843  
Old 01-25-2014, 12:07 PM
Hentor the Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 14,427
Monster104, something happening 50 times a day is "routine" enough for me. You want to pretend that routine is defined by an incidence rate? Sure... just tell me what incidence rate defines "routine"? Further, you can't even tell me for sure it doesn't meet your assuredly arbitrary definition of routine, since you cannot tell me the denominator. You dumb little bitch.
  #3844  
Old 01-25-2014, 12:57 PM
Fear Itself is offline
One of Cecil's six friends
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Did you read the part where I wrote (and you quoted) that it usually requires "one of two"?
Leaving a gun where a child can access it is an action.
  #3845  
Old 01-25-2014, 11:24 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian View Post
Monster104, something happening 50 times a day is "routine" enough for me. You want to pretend that routine is defined by an incidence rate? Sure... just tell me what incidence rate defines "routine"? Further, you can't even tell me for sure it doesn't meet your assuredly arbitrary definition of routine, since you cannot tell me the denominator. You dumb little bitch.
Don't late term abortions occur about that frequently? Are they routine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Leaving a gun where a child can access it is an action.
And depending on the circumstances, that would be considered negligent homicide. I don't get your point. Like I said, we already have a legal system in place that handles this stuff.

Are you under the impression that someone leaves a gun out, their kids shoot each other and the cops say "well try to be more careful next time"

I don't object to gun owners who fuck up going to jail, I object to twisting the current legal rules that have worked well for us for centuries just so that we can create special criminal liability for gun owners. Its not just that you are persecuting gun owners, its that you are undermining the legal system in a nation of laws in order to do so.
  #3846  
Old 01-25-2014, 11:56 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
My god, your arguments are stupid as hell.

Increasing the sentence for a particular crime is now "undermining the legal system", guys.
  #3847  
Old 01-26-2014, 01:54 AM
RedFury is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hell's Den
Posts: 7,443
Two killed in Maryland mall shooting; motive uncertain

Quote:
COLUMBIA, Md. — In the latest burst of violence in a week of fatal shootings in public places, a man wielding a shotgun opened fire Saturday morning in a bustling suburban shopping mall in Maryland, killing two people and sending hundreds of terrified shoppers screaming and racing for cover.

The motive was unknown and authorities dismissed news reports that tied the killings to a domestic dispute. "We do not know yet what caused the shooting incident," Howard County Police Chief Bill McMahon told reporters gathered outside the shopping center, known as the Mall in Columbia.

He identified the victims as two Maryland residents, Brianna Benlolo, 21, of College Park, and Tyler Johnson, 25, of Mount Airy. Both were employees at Zumiez, a skateboard shop on the upper level of the mall.

<snip>

The shooting capped a week of gun violence in public venues. On Monday a student was shot and wounded at Widener University near Philadelphia. The next day, at Purdue University in Indiana, Andrew Boldt, 21, a teaching assistant, was stabbed and shot to death in an engineering building classroom.

On Friday a student at South Carolina State University, 20-year-old Brandon Robinson, was gunned down outside a dormitory...
And so it goes. On and on and on.
  #3848  
Old 01-26-2014, 06:59 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,354
Quote:
wielding a shotgun opened fire
Shotgun. As in this particular shooting had nothing to do with handgun carry, "assault weapons", or any of the other bugaboos popular with the anti crowd. Nothing short of banning hunting guns would have prevented this.

ETA: I don't suppose the mall banned guns?

Last edited by Lumpy; 01-26-2014 at 07:03 AM.
  #3849  
Old 01-26-2014, 09:26 AM
Jack Batty's Avatar
Jack Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: The Astral Plane.
Posts: 15,245
Oh, well, then; I guess those two dead people don't even count. Just add them to all the other statistics on top of the, "I guess that's just the price we have to pay to play with our dangerous toys" pile.
  #3850  
Old 01-26-2014, 09:44 AM
Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 816
Joe Biden told us a shotgun was all we needed. I wonder if he's gonna back of that claim now.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017