Thanks for making my point for me.
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.
nm
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?
More true than most gun advocates would like to admit about a very vocal subset of gun advocates.
[/QUOTE]
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.” :smack: )
Clearly just another example of someone who lacked sufficient training. Nothing to see here…
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Where do I claim that ANY fear of guns is irrational?
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 Fear of flying - Wikipedia People also die in mass shootings and other sensational, highly publicized events so some people develop an irrational fear of guns Gun culture in the United States - Wikipedia
The stupid is so overwhelming, you can’t really tell if you’re crazy.
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. Murder in Pennsylvania law - Wikipedia
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.
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.
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”?
Poor trigger discipline. A lot of cops don’t get enough training with their guns.
You have a point!?!??! Since when do you have a point?
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?
What you are proposing is not putting up a net, what you are proposing is outlawing tall buildings.
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
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).