Right. If I negligently kill a seven year-old child because I didn't follow basic safety protocols while carrying a firearm without proper license, how is it that I wouldn't be charged? I guarantee you that if I ran down my child with a car while driving without a license, at night, without headlights, there would be no question of what I was charged with.
But, hey, if I do it with a gun? No charges.
Your argument is with the locals, the sheriff investigator, prosecutor and not with me regarding that... I would have prosecuted.
The number of times "responsible gun owners" plead that they didn't know there was a round in the chamber?
this is a situational argument. it is only valid with the situation. EVERY GUN OWNER is taught that a gun is loaded. always. period. Just as I teach my grandchildren that there is NO SUCH THING as an unloaded gun, so too does the military and the NRA.
Your argument is invalid to all users, only to those users to whose this excuse.
AND remember that people USED to have the SAME problem with cars, right? "Officer, I didn't KNOW it was in gear... it jumpes when I turned the key..."
Hey, they were "responsible gun owners" right up until the moment someone died.
and again, itis illegal to kill someone unless defending your life, your family etc... FROM YOUR ARTICLE LINK
Kochems said he considered the charge, a misdemeanor punishable by up to five years in prison, because Loughrey's gun was loaded when he put it in his truck moments before the gun fired on Dec. 8, killing his son, Craig
JUST LIKE I SAID
there ARE laws.. right now you have a problem with Kochems, NOT ME, or OTHER GUN USERS.
This is what needs to stop
being absolved from the law and legal ramifications, yes.
and apparently mandatory responsibility with a gun is a constitutional violation because it bans guns, or something like that.
and AGAIN, no it is NOT.
AND AGAIN, I refer you back to your OWN ARTICLE LINKED: you have a serious beef with Kochems, NOT GUN OWNERS, NOR OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
Bill, for instance, regardless of whether or not he agrees, ought to be able to recall the bit about holding up a store with fried eggs.
and I will say it again, I do not speak for Bill, nor does ANYONE ELSE speak for me without my approval or consent. and I have NO PROBLEMS telling others that i do or do not agree with something.
As to your elucidation, the problem is that your analogy only works one way. That is to say, when you send me an SMS from your handgun while waiting at a red light as you ride your rifle to work, the whole gun as a tool analogy will have better standing.
and again, I say that you do NOT understand the analogy. Would you say also: "when you send me an SMS from your screwdriver while waiting at a red light as you ride your hammer to work, the whole construction tool as a tool analogy will have better standing"?? NO, because it is ridiculous.
So then why add said ridiculous argument to the situation?
A gun is a metal/wood/other fabricated tool that is used by an individual to a purpose.
A hammer is a metal/wood/other fabricated tool that is used by an individual to a purpose.
A screwdriver is a Metal/plastic/other fabricated tool that is used by an individual to a purpose.
A car is a metal/fabric/plastics fabricated tool that is used by an individual to a purpose.
Thus, IF A TOOL, be it gun, screwdriver, car, hammer, knife, rubber mallet, duct tape, or otherwise, were left TO ITS OWN DEVICES AND VOLITION then it would be an INANIMATE FABRICATED TOOL that is incapable of harm regardless of intent of any users nearby.
The CORE ISSUE is the USER, and SAID USERS INTENT. This is the point that the tool analogy is referring to. I should also point out that certain tools are KNOWN to be deadly and easily accessible to any person. Even CARS, though licensed, taxed and regulated, are easily available. They account for more deaths. But they are not on the BANNING block... WHY?
convenience. image. purpose.
PEOPLE need cars to get around (according to them), to get jobs, etc... they feel cars are tied to their image (many people do). They are purpose designed. They are also DEADLY in the wrong hands, or in the hands of the inexperienced, or in the hands of the mentally ill...
and yet we let inexperienced drivers GET EXPERIENCE in our roads, and mentally ill people are licensed as well...
People want to bad guns out of FEAR and the UNKNOWN, and those fears are fed upon my the willing, able and motivated, be it criminal or gun ban groups. If you were to listen to and regularly see Colion Noir's video's, you would see a person that was from an anti-gun background who chose education over ignorance, and became a gun supporter.
And it is true that the problem is the operator of any given device. But therein we also encounter a problem; as I have noted before, the firearms discussion pressed close enough to me that it became an issue of political conscience when I was a teenager, twenty-five years ago after Stockton.
the WHOLE problem is the issue of the operator, NOT THE TOOL... which is what I keep trying to say!
If you have a negative past with firearms, then I am sorry. My wife was also negatively affected by guns in her past. She has lived with it for years. She also chose education over ignorance. (I choose the word ignorance with regard to this discussion because you seem as though you are educated, however you are incredibly UNEDUCATED as to firearms and their use, etc)
And what the last quarter century has shown is that, for firearms advocates generally—as characterized according to political argument and societal outcomes—will not permit society to keep guns out of the wrong hands if that means the so-called, self-proclaimed "responsible gun owners".
you seem confused and you are not correct, either.
THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS and the members of NRA, every one I have EVER met, have all been ADVOCATES of keeping the firearms out of the hands of criminals and the insane... it is the ANTI-Gun group that makes claims like you have just made.
The PRO-Gun groups want LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to be able to OWN FIREARMS whenever they choose, and to PROTECT THEIR LIVES AND FAMILIES. The PROBLEM arises when Anti-Gun groups start talking about restrictive laws that HAVE PROVEN INEFFECTIVE against CRIMINALS and so on... (See: Chicago, L.A., South Miami, New York, Washington DC, for evidence of INCREDIBLY STRICT firearms regulations that are ineffective)
now WHY is it ineffective? it really is simple in those areas I mentioned: BECAUSE THE ONLY PEOPLE ABIDING BY THE LAWS ARE THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS... NOT THE CRIMINALS. The Criminal has NO problems violating the law for personal gain... hence the term "criminal". The ONLY way you will make a DIFFERENCE is to do something ABOUT THE CRIMINAL, not the gun!
What about when the opposite of that is used as a legal defense?
see FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS for details about prosecution
Yes, responsible gun ownership.
NO, that was NOT RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP... it was ALSO not responsible legal guardianship for written laws, nor of the rights of the deceased.
you have a problem with the prosecutors, NOT WITH GUN OWNERS WHO ABIDE BY THE LAW AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
Funny thing is that if I dig through the archives enough, I can find among the myriad gun-issue discussions at this site a former Marine aruging as a firearms advocate telling us that guns just can't accidentally fire by themselves.
Semper Fi. Marines are smart. They are RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS who are taught correctly.
and he is VERY CORRECT. GUNS CANNOT FIRE of their own volition. they do NOT have a will of their own... like ANY OTHER TOOL.
Except, as we have repeatedly found out over the years, when a gun firing itself becomes a legal defense.
All he had to do was check the chamber. You know, like a responsible gun owner should.
and AGAIN, I totally agree with that! HE SHOULD HAVE CHECKED, because there is NO SUCH THING as an unloaded weapon until it is cleared by YOU, locked and made safe EVERY TIME you touch it, and in such a manner as to show that said weapon CANNOT POSSIBLY BE FIRED. (In the military the slide must be locked back, magazine ejected and chamber cleared/open for visible inspection... and STILL the weapon was always treated as if LOADED and ready to fire!)
FIREARMS 101
Please show me an automotive analogy, where negligence counts as a good faith defense against even being charged with a crime. Show me where abandonment of basic safety protocols in an automobile is an excuse to not charge someone if they kill another person with their car while operating without those protocols. Please.
I investigated a vehicular death where the car was parked. The owner was inside it, there was another person outside the vehicle. They were arguing. The owner tried to start the vehicle and claimed that she did not know it was in gear. The car jumped and pinned the other person to a wall, crushing the pelvis and severing the femoral artery, causing trauma and massive bleeding. The person died within minutes. The judge decided NOT to punish the woman despite my proof that the two people were constantly at each others throats and there was a history of attempted aggressive behavior on the part of the woman driver. The judge found sympathy, whereas I pushed for prosecution. The judge saw an accident that anyone could do, I saw a malicious intent driven attack... perhaps she didn't MEAN for it to kill the other person, but it did. This should have been manslaughter, but it was dismissed as an accident.
SAID WOMAN was tried and convicted of vehicular homicide two years later for killing another person who she fought with regularly.
Sometimes the system sucks... sometimes it works. Fecal matter happens.
I recognize that many firearms advocates see no difference between an object that could kill a person (car, pencil, fried eggs ... why not add trees and airplane lavs to the list?) and an object designed for the specific purpose of killing. So even setting that issue aside, the whole gun-as-tool analogy still suffers a logical problem demanding resolution.
not true. The gun is specifically designed to kill, just like the KNIFE, and the BOW, and the CROSSBOW, and the SWORD, and the BLOWGUN, and more... but it was also designed as a tool to make eating easier... like all of the said above.
Where I live, a person without a gun is food for wild animals. We have bear, mountain lion, wild boar, feral dog packs, coyote packs, and more. Taking a walk in the woods is taking your life into your own hands... LITERALLY (with or without a gun). My guns are primarily used for putting meat on my table (I don't make enough money on my military retirement to buy expensive stuff like fresh meats etc unless I go get food stamps, which I refuse to do) I use a black powder rifle, and I make my own powder and ball with local resources. and NO ONE bothers me at all. ever.
I do, in fact, wonder at your preferred gun of choice when signing anything. A handgun? Assault rifle? Maybe go with an MP-5 for a nice compromise? Or how about a Mossberg shotgun? That'll leave a mark, for certain.
I usually use a S&W model 10-9 snub nose adapted to take special bullet pens, which I carry in my ammo pouch (and I am not being sarcastic, either)
Again, you miss the actual point... but OK. I have seen people die much worse, slower deaths from mundane common objects more often than I have treated gun deaths/wounds etc.
Methinks something got lost in your translation.
perhaps something did... but l see where you make assumptions about guns as though other typical accidental deaths by other means similar would not be punished... and they ARE, given the correct investigator, prosecutor and judge.
Right. So if I kill a seven year-old while speeding around in my car at night without headlights, the prosecutor is going to cut me a good faith break and not charge me because I thought I was being safe? How does the car analogy work in the Pennsylvania example quoted above?
see my explanation earlier... there HAVE been PLENTY of vehicular homicide (as well as DUI/DWI deaths) that were excused by the good-ol-boy system, the prominance of the person, the money of the person, goodness or upstanding citizen awards by the offender, or otherwise... it's not like there isn't plenty of evidence of THAT... even STILL!
one of my neighbors was just arrested for DWI after killing the other neighbors dog and barely missing him in the process... he is back driving again after 4 months... this was his 5th DWI in the last 7 years. He was let off because "he was a disabled vet, and he is a narc for the cops"
I see. So let me get this straight: A responsible gun owner makes an argument, claiming reasonable knowledge by association of what other gun owners believe, and for me to grant that argument any weight on the table is "personal conjecture" and "a known lie"?
Well, fine. That's what we get for trusting a self-proclaimed responsible gun owner, then?
Did you VERIFY his claims with the NRA?
YOU ARE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT THIS PERSON SPEAKS FOR THE NRA (OR ALL GUN OWNERS)... unless you specifically see their endorsement and seal, and they accept it as being in their image and what they believe... it is NOT from the NRA. and no one speaks for me.
I would have checked with the NRA about the validity of his claims.
Case in point: On another site I was told that modern astrophysicists do not know about plasma physics, and referenced the article and study use of MHD as proof of comment. I contacted the study author as well as the school supporting the study. MHD includes some plasma physics, and is a viable alternative to large structural models for plasma's. The plasma physics were ALSO modeled in the study and mentioned. The astrophysicist in question also pointed out that ALL ASTROPHYSICISTS MUST LEARN plasma physics in order to do the job and get the degree. IOW - just because person A makes a claim that seems logical (or something that the NRA or another person/institution appear to support) DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SAID PERSON IS A SPOKESPERSON OR IN ANY WAY SPEAKING FOR THE INSTITUTION.
this boils down to you having a beef with someone else (AGAIN) and NOT with the NRA, or even me.
I will suggest to you to start here:
http://membership.nrahq.org/about-us.asp and if you have more questions, contact the NRA site and get the TRUTH directly from the SOURCE
In reviewing the outlook expressed by our "responsible" gun owning neighbor, please note the issue he responded to:
The National Rifle Association is fighting proposed federal legislation that would prohibit those convicted of stalking and of domestic violence against dating partners from buying guns, according to a letter obtained by The Huffington Post.
for starters: Huffington post.
and again... GO TO THE SOURCE AND FIND OUT THE TRUTH BEHIND THE NRA and their fight.
I think your point there would be better served to start with marital community property, and examine the statutory record from there, such as adult children living in the household.
there are STILL divisions of property, ownership and this is supported by LAW and moral/cultural values.
And I also think there is a problem with the idea that Mrs. Lanza "took all the right precautions". She knew her son had mental health problems. She knew of his rising capacity for violence. Her response to this observation in terms of securing the firearms was, apparently, insufficient.
like I said... a criminal will find a way regardless... MOST teens, especially teen males, go through an aggressive and violent stage (and likely she was also told this by her professionals dealing with the son)
SHe might have been told that he would "outgrow" the problems, as many Dr.'s do still today (even with disease I know for a FACT they will not outgrow... but that is another argument)
She took the right precautions. Safe. locks. secured guns. It was the criminal son who decided to ignore the laws and moral/cultural teachings and become a violent killer.
INTENT. USE. PERSON SPECIFIC... like I said.
Don't believe me? see the prison system for proof! Surrounded by ARMED and unarmed security/cops 24/7/365 and there are STILL drugs inside, homicide, violence, etc... DAILY.
Can you shank twenty kids to death in five minutes with a toothbrush?
Could I personally physically do it? yes. Will I do it? no. I happen to like kids. (albeit fried or slow cooked - this is hyperbole with a dash of sarcasm)
I could also shank adults lethally. I was trained to do so.
But that is NOT the point. INTENT is the point. Just because I am CAPABLE, does not meant THAT I WILL.
Recalling the history of the War Against Drugs, and the concomitant militarization of police departments, it's hard to see how your historical argument works.
I hate to bust your bubble, but ALL police departments, Fire departments etc are already para-military organizations. In set up, execution and control. So what is your point with the propaganda leaflet? No matter WHERE you go, cops are para-military. Even Britain, where the basic Bobby is unarmed...
Furthermore, the privatization of prisons has gone over miserably, and the tough-on-crime politics of the Southern Strategy have simultaneously stepped up enforcement while trimming the fat in the form of stripping away any hope of our prison industry being corrective or rehabilitative.
perhaps private prisons in your state have failed, but in MY state, they actually support themselves completely, from making and selling goods (and services) to growing their own food. The only thing they DONT pay for is their building (initially).
And our prisons are NOT rehabilitative AT ALL... never have been. Not likely to be, either. Right now they are learning institutions on how to be better criminals. that is it.
And although it is, perhaps, a separate component of the larger issue of firearms in society, it's worth noting that some police departments consider a concealed-carry permit a strike against a suspect. That is to say, it's the difference between a knock and announce search and the sort of no-knock raid that so often ends up with a dead suspect. Something about self-protection and the number of cops goes here, I suppose.
that is a sad reflection of the leadership of the law enforcement agency. Your cops likely would enter MY house guns blazing, whereas the cops in my area enlist me for use in tracking, taking down criminals, investigation or security.
Sorry you live where you do. I would ask where it is (to remember to stay away from there), but I don't want you to publish personal info on the web.
Billvon, whether or not he agrees with my outlook, generally knows what I'm taliking about. There is a context there that you are excluding.
I can only include or comment on conversations that I am aware of. and I am not aware of your conversations.
For instance, one of those links refers to our neighbor making an argument about sexual violence; it's a long, sticky mess in this community, but essentially it boils down to people trying to be useful by giving useless advice. That is, in addition to presuming the intended audience (i.e., women) stupid as bricks, the advice applies to a slender minority of reported rapes.
Sorry to see that people can be so stupid while trying to be helpful. I've never supported sexual assault/rape in any way, and I've regularly taught self defense classes to women to protect from it
Whether there is another explanation for this particularly acute expression of observably human behavior
rape is not just a specific human trait... there are instances in the animal kingdom. just sayin'
The other link points toward a recent thread about "no accidents" with firearms. You will note that "responsible gun owners" are uncomfortable with any specific legal obligation to that responsibility.
please do not confuse the posters you see here with responsible gun owners. this is not a true representative group. I am a responsible gun owner. And I FULLY SUPPORT the laws and responsible gun ownership. What i DO NOT support is ignorance and blatant stupidity...
Questions of violence are generational, and one of the hard things about changing attitudes toward violence on a societal level is that one must first penetrate the discourse in order to transform the core issues into something that facilitates actual, useful discourse.
this is 100% true. I fully support any attempts to change the attitudes towards violence. That would necessitate changing media and known outlets that utilize violence to sell, like news organizations. Good luck with that... given the changes in censorship from the 70's to today... it is NOT likely to change anytime soon, much to the disappointment of a great majority of peaceful people.