jfields

Joe, You are right that we are suffering from some "Thread Creep". Not thread hijacking really, but the natural meanderings of related issues. When we get into dealing with other countries it gets tricky. Their laws are not the same as ours. It is disrespectful of their sovereignty to try to impose our values and laws on them. Of course, being the United States, we do that all the time. I'm not saying it is right, just that we do it. If we look beyond the variations in both international and domestic laws to the more philosophical level, is it right for us to take on the role of the world's police force without first having our own house in order? How would we feel if others did the same to us? That gets to a simpler "Do unto others as you'd have done to you" discussion, rather than a legal or military one.

Actually, we don't have to leave the US in looking for examples. We could look at the handling of native americans, the internment of Japanese americans during WWII, or the McCarthyism of the 1950s. Our laws allow for the changing of rules in a gradual process. The Constitution specifically notes that. But as was discussed in the recent gun thread, the change needs to be very gradual. There are checks and balances in how the laws evolve, to make sure it happens slowly. The laws are able to adapt according to established guidelines, so as to remove the option for breaking them because they are inapplicable. We (as a citizen-elected government) have the power to change laws, but the government does not have the authority to break them once made.

"Blood on the Risers", of course, but that probably isn't really what you were asking.

Main Entry: de·fuse Function: transitive verb Date: 1943 1 : to remove the fuse from (as a mine or bomb) 2 : to make less harmful, potent, or tense Tom, way to throw me an easy one. I meant what I said. I don't think it is an issue of straight versus crooked. I think the police should have communicated better, and more clearly explained what they were doing. Because things didn't go right does not instantly prove that they had bad intentions. It just showed that they could have been more proficient in the public relations part of their job. No. Just chips in the heads of the gun owners. I'm exempt.

I think both sides are missing part of the point here. The cops were working insane hours and putting up with tremendous public and media pressure on the case. Then they come across someone who is going very far out of his way to make their job into a difficult circus. I'm not getting into the legal specifics, because I'm not a lawyer. But his intent was clearly to frustrate and hinder the police, even while ostensibly complying. If nothing else, his shenanigans wasted a lot of time. The guy is no "Second Amendment Hero". He was an ass. Yet the cops lost their cool too. Despite the strain of the situation, they shouldn't have. They should have dealt with the guy better. The situation was designed so they would look foolish no matter what, but they should have done better at defusing the situation. I don't think this example makes any case whatsoever about the sensibilities of gun owners or gun ownership. If the general public all acted like this guy did, law enforcement would be far less effective than it is now and criminals would take even longer to be caught.

Ah, the spirit of open-minded dialogue. Where are you headed now, Tom? You graduating from UMCP and going back to New Jersey?

From the reports from the WFFC, I think it would help your situation greatly. Me too, and I don't even live anywhere near you!

Maybe that only applies to handguns, or maybe just concealed weapons permits. If people only use weapons on their own land, I don't really care what they do there. (Well, as long as they don't accidently kill the neighbor's kid or something.) Honest question... can't you walk into a firing range and rent a "house gun" or something without owning one yourself? Just like having some requirement for driving with an instructor (driver's ed) before getting a driver's license, I don't see a problem requiring a basic weapon familiarization course, provided facilities exist. They could cover the basics of assembly, loading and safeties, as you noted, plus the chance to put a few rounds downrange. I fear the slippery-slope effect in the other direction. Where do we draw the line in what weapons people have the right to own? Handguns? Rifles? Automatic rifles? Rocket launchers, etc? The debate can get absurd. If we can agree that some things shouldn't be in the public's hands (NBC weapons, etc.) and some should (pocket knives, etc.), the whole debate becomes where in the middle the line should be drawn. I'm certainly willing to be reasonable about it. All I'm asking is that the other side be reasonable as well, without using the second amendment as a catch-all for everything and a justification against any limitations whatsoever. I see the reason for a waiting period as two-fold. First, it may prevent some of the "heat of the moment" crime. The second, and more important reason is to allow time for a meaningful background check. This check should make sure the person isn't a criminal. Given the inefficiency in government and law enforcement, it may take a little while. I'm not defending the ineptitude of the bureaucracy, but I think that the checks should be thorough. If they could be done quicker with equal or better accuracy, I'd happily see the waiting periods reduced.

I think the only feelings he worries about are the ones he loses when he wears a condom.

Personally, I find posting on dz.com and insulting Skreamer and Clay to be pretty good therapy. That said, you need to take a look at the big picture and do the evaluation of your mental health. None of us can do that for you, or tell you what to do. All I'd say is to be serious about the decision and be honest with yourself, no matter the outcome. Good luck.

Bill, I was saying "responsible" for purposes of our debate. I would also want more concrete details before anything went further. I'm not advocating anything that isn't basically common sense. I'm not suggesting we screen by ethnicity, color or any type of religious affiliation. First off, lets do a better job of keeping convicted criminals from legally buying guns. That seems like a fairly easy distinction that shouldn't upset honest gun buyers, as it won't apply to them. Next, how about some other measures. When you apply for a driver's license, you need to take a vision test. I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see. When you want a driver's license, you also have to take a driving test, at least, you do where I live. Would it be unreasonable to want prospective firearms owners to stand a better chance of hitting their target than hitting bystanders? Maybe that one only applies to CCW candidates, as people can be as off the mark as they want in their own home. We'll just hope they don't hit anyone through a window or a thin apartment wall. Another limitation that has been vehemently resisted is the limit of buying one handgun per month. While you didn't specifically mention opposition to it, it appears reasonable to me. How many handguns does an individual need to defend themselves? That law is probably a bigger problem for potential gun smugglers than anyone else. It slows the flow of weapons from their legal owners into the gray and black markets, and therefore to criminals. A waiting period between initiating purchase and actual posession of the firearm also seems reasonable to me. Once again, it doesn't prevent law-abiding people from purchasing weapons, and therefore doesn't violate what they feel is their second amendment right. I guess I feel that a few relatively minor checks in the system would be a good thing. I know many of the gun advocates feel that it is a god-given right to be able to walk in to any gun store, buy as many weapons as they want, take posession of them immediately, and do the whole thing anonymously without background checks or registration. I personally don't see the right for every private individual to purchase guns as a constitutionally-guaranteed right, but that is a difference in intepretation of the second amendment. That aside, I definitely don't see those qualifiers in the purchase process as a constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Neither does the supreme court.

Hell no. Walk around naked a lot at the DZ. That should help out with the answer to the "How much can you afford to jump" thread.

I'm the youngest child in my family. I remember what my dad said when I asked him what he would do after I left for college the next day, "Have sex on the dining room table." Gee, thanks, Dad. TMI! But I think you should do something to re-dedicate your place as a single woman's place. You just need to find a willing co-conspirator, which should be pretty easy.

Time and willingness to be away from my wife and daughter are bigger constraints than the money. The times I actually go jumping, I often try to churn out some serious jump numbers, with varying degrees of success. Last time was great, 19 jumps in a weekend. 10 is more average recently. But I only jump about 2 days per month.

Thanks, Erno. I'm downloading it now and I'll install it on their computer.

Steve, Please define "honest gun owner", and explain how they differ at the time of gun purchase from people that legally buy guns and then later commit murders with them. Which of the differences could be partially identified and used as screening factors to make sure the "honest gun owner" can purchase guns and the would-be criminal can't, or at least, not as easily. I can think of some right off the top of my head: Substantial waiting period. Gun registration. Considering that neither of those remove your ability to buy a gun or defend yourself, what valid reasons are there for not implementing them fully?

One of the users in my office is in the same boat as Erno. Are there any good third-party shareware utilities that do the same thing as the old quick launch bar? I don't really feel like stripping out IE 6, going back to 4, then re-upgrading back to 6. Thanks.

Michelle, I really don't think we are so far apart on this issue. Though you have stayed away from the debate, I welcome your presence as it is rational and considerate, even if differing in views. Convicted of something violence related, whether felony or misdemeaner. If a charge was made, but didn't stick, they aren't a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty. I don't think it is a problem. If somebody is yelling and screaming in a movie theatre, the management has a right to kick them off of the property. That isn't taking away the right to free speech. It is taking away the ability to do it there and then, on someone's property. They can walk outside and yell all they want. If someone walks into a liquor store, the proprieter has the right not to sell the person booze if they are in question about the person's ID. A bartender may also cut someone off if they think the person has had too much to drink. If I were a gun store owner, I wouldn't sell to someone who was muttering about killing their boss. I wouldn't do it, legal or not, because I wouldn't want the moral responsibility and guilt if the person were to buy it and kill their boss. There will be other, better customers. In numerous places earlier in the thread, I've mentioned that I'm not pushing for more laws. I'm in favor of better laws, and better enforcement of those laws. So, I think we actually agree on that. Many in this thread have expressed hostilty to the types of safety measures that would cut down on innocent deaths while maintaining the right to have firearms for personal protection. That is what I don't understand. With such unwillingness to compromise for the common good, I see the issue as more about selfishness than equal value on human life. (I'm not throwing you in that group, as you haven't expressed yourself in that fashion.) I was responding to Mike's comment that if guns were banned in the general area where we live, he would move to Texas, because it would secede rather than give up gun rights. I don't think segregation is the answer.

Mike, How about we start with some common sense things like not selling to criminals? Yes, they may get them otherwise, but why make it easy by letting them do it in the gun store? We can also use a little common sense in the store. When someone comes in muttering about how they just got fired and want revenge on their boss, does it make sense to immediately hand them a firearm? Yes, they are, but we could make it a little more difficult. We could also punish it a lot more. Right now, the disincentive isn't enough. Willfully taking a life doesn't have enough negative repercussions on the criminal. For every dead body, the criminal gets little more than a slap on the wrist. Children of gun owners should be taught by their parents. Even as a non-gun owner, my children will know about guns. But guns have no business in our schools. Not in physical presence (which happens too often) and not otherwise. There is no reason that children should be forced into a gun culture at school if their parents don't want it. It will happen later anyway, but it should not be mandated by the school system. That is a parental responsibility, as determine by each household for their own children. Largely, they did. But I did not hear good reasons why it would be undesirable if the accuracy was better. I don't buy into the reasons people have stated why registration is bad. I don't think they are valid, when compared to the potential good. As I said earlier, I don't understand why the gun folks are against safety measures that would cut down on the "collateral damage" of gun ownership without removing the alleged right to own guns. I see that as selfish. I'm sure they'd be happy to have you. If that happens, please take all your weapons with you, as the rest of us don't want them around. I'd even wish the Country of Texas well, but I will remain a resident of the United States, thank you.

I know there is a Microsoft-released "Windows Power Toy" that provides virtual desktops for XP, but I don't know that it comes in the shrink-wrapped version.

Bill, The context I was talking about is different than that which you are defending. I agree with you that even cases of blatant murder deserve a fair trial. What I was referring to when I mentioned being ashamed was the "right" to easily get guns without good background checks, waiting periods, trigger locks, etc. I haven't called for a complete ban on firearms. We are probably in favor of the same things. I think the laws need to be better. The screening process needs to be better. The punishments for violations need to be higher. None of those actually says people shouldn't be able to own firearms. Despite the fact that I dispute most of the arguements people use in support of firearm ownership, I think they should be allowed to own them. I just think that along with that ownership should come a higher level of responsibility. Correct. I get frustrated sometimes at the assertions that only "hardened lifelong criminals" do anything wrong with firearms. It is an important issue, and sometimes I skew off the path of helpful dialogue and vent some emotion. Considering the mass of rhetoric, inaccurate statistics and absurd analogies, I think I've done pretty decently so far in response. I agree with that, with the one minor change. I'd say "as long as it doesn't hinder responsible people from getting guns." I don't understand the objections to reasonable changes that may dramatically reduce accidental and rage-induced deaths while still allowing gun ownership.

I think some spammers are taking to using IMCP to get messages through. Our firewall blocks it for about 90% of our stations. Those that have IMCP enabled for valid reasons also get the occasional new-style messaging spam. Evil spamming bastards!

You're right Kennedy, but it is irrelevant. I don't care how many legal gun owners use their guns to defend themselves in their homes or whatever, because I don't have a problem with that. If it is self-defense, then fine, good for them. But you cannot legitimately dispute that some people buy guns legally and then use them to wound or kill innocent people. Each incident where somebody takes advantage of their "god given right" to buy a gun legally in this country and then murder somebody with it does more harm to the pro-gun faction than you can possibly imagine. And it happens all the time. The "banning guns only hurts honest folks" mantra is utter nonsense. Tell it to the innocent dead folks, killed by people who walked into a gun store and bought it within the limits of the law. Tell it to the innocent dead folks who were killed by enraged people with valid concealed carry permits. Look at the mother whose child gets killed by a careless gun owner's child in the eye and tell her all about your "rights". I would be ashamed to defend the rights of murderers, yet that is exactly what you are doing. You say it needs to be easy too buy a gun. You say we have too many purchasing restrictions already. You say registration is bad because it takes away your right to anonymous firepower. You say that even if ballistic fingerprinting worked, it would be bad because it would raise the cost of guns. I am appalled at the callous lack of value placed on innocent human life. It is more important to you to protect your right to own a gun than to protect human life itself. If you don't believe that, then explain why you are unwilling to accept compromises that would lessen the frequency of innocent people dying while still allowing you to own weapons. I am far from an extreme gun control supporter. I'm not even calling for a ban on firearms. But the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the pro-gun people infuriates even moderates like myself. Be thankful that I am not a gun owner who could fly off the handle and easily murder someone due to the generous "rights" you are defending.

Untrue, at least not everywhere. "On November 7, 2001, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled that under Alaska law a judge could not take into account a man's mental illness when taking away his concealed-weapons permit. In October 1998, Timothy Wagner walked into an Anchorage store and told an employee that he needed to soak out the chemicals that had been injected into him or else they would kill him. He also said a computer chip had been implanted in his head. When police were called to the scene, Wagner failed to tell police immediately that he was armed as required by law. Despite a history of mental illness, Wagner was able to get and keep an CCW permit because Alaska's concealed-weapons law was changed at the behest of the gun lobby to prohibit law enforcement from considering a person's mental state when applying for a permit. " "Alaska Court Rules on Concealed Gun," Associated Press story, January 10, 2002. "During the summer of 2000, Austin, TX, taxi driver Wayne Franklin Lambert Jr. shot and killed two unarmed men, both high-tech professionals, who had been his passengers. According to police, Lambert, a gun enthusiast with a Texas concealed-handgun license shot one of the men three times in the back. The other victim gave a deathbed statement, saying that the taxi driver became angry over something his friend had said and challenged him to a fight. Other cab drivers gave police sworn statements saying Lambert was "very short-tempered" and "always angry at just about everything." One cab driver claimed Lambert once said, "I would shoot someone over a dollar." According to state records, Lambert was charged with assault after beating, choking and threatening to kill another taxi driver in August 1994. Lambert was charged with capital murder, representing the second multiple murder case brought against a Texas concealed-gun licensee in the last three years" ABC News, July 16, 2001 "On May 30, 2000, a fistfight turned into a gun battle outside the home of Dale Cramm, 44, of Everett, WA, resulting in the death of two teens. Cramm's son was later charged in the deaths, and Cramm himself was charged with witness tampering, tampering with physical evidence, and three drug-related felonies. Police also confiscated an arsenal of weapons, including five shotguns, three SKS assault rifles, 3 other rifles, bayonets and high-capacity magazines. Within days after the weapons were confiscated, Cramm, who was out on bail, allegedly went to a local gun show and purchased more firearms. According to police, Cramm used his CCW permit as identification to purchase guns at the gun show." "The guns of Dale Cramm," Daily Herald, August 14, 2000 "A disabled handyman was arrested after the brutal murder of a popular Aventura, FL, surgeon. Robert Herndon, a Florida concealed-weapons permit holder, was accused of gunning down Dr. Bradley Silverman outside his office. Authorities later discovered that Herndon had been twice charged with assault, the first charge being dropped, the second reduced to a misdemeanor. Herndon was described by neighbors as "a man who easily lost his temper and who threatened them with his gun." Moreover, when police sought Herndon for questioning following the January 11, 1999, murder, they traced him to a local mental health facility where he had voluntarily committed himself. Police later found out that Herndon had a long history of mental illness, but got a permit because of loopholes in the Florida law." "Police Link Grudge to Doctor's Slaying; Handyman with Disability Arrested in Surgeon's Death," Sun-Sentinel, January 16, 1999. Carlton Evans, a 37-year-old concealed-weapons permit holder in Seattle, WA, was accused of killing his wife and baby daughter after months of abuse. Fearing for her life, Evans' estranged wife, Melanie Edwards took her 2-year-old daughter Carli Fay and fled the family home. Edwards filed for a protection order on October 19, 1998. One day later, Evans applied for, and was granted, a Washington CCW permit. On December 9th, armed with his 9mm semi-automatic pistol, Evans killed Melanie and baby Carli Fay. Evans fled, and later killed himself when police tried to arrest him. A Seattle women's shelter spokesperson noted, "You have a battered woman who is in fear for her life and her childÉ[that] very court awards visitation rights to a known abuser who had a gun and [Edwards] ended up dead. "Mother 'Played by the Rules' and She and Daughter Died," Associated Press, December 21, 1998. "On September 3, 1998, three Connecticut State Troopers sustained multiple gunshot wounds from Edward Premo, who had a Connecticut concealed handgun permit. Two of the Troopers were questioning Premo at his home on suspicion that he had vandalized a neighbor's car when he became hostile. Suddenly, Premo whipped a 9mm semi-automatic pistol from his waistband and shot both at close range. As the officers fired back, Premo ran into his house, returning seconds later with a high-powered rifle. Two more Troopers responded to the call and were fired upon by the suspect. Fortunately, all three Troopers who were hit, Michael Hoague, Mark Pelletier and James Reidy, survived the attack. After inspecting Premo's home, law enforcement investigators found nine explosive booby traps, hand grenades, dynamite, pipe bombs and guns. Premo, who had a history of mental illness, was later found innocent of the shooting by reason of insanity." "Suspect No Stranger to Guns, Explosives," Hartford Courant, September 4, 1998 and "State Police Commissioner investigating trooper shooting 2 years ago," The News-Times, August 20, 2000. Hard to get a gun legally? Hardly. Evidently, it barely requires a pulse. Criminal records and histories of mental illness don't seem to be substantial hindrances. The only "good honest citizens" I see in these examples are the dead ones. What about their rights?

Steve, The world will never be a perfectly safe place. I agree with you. But I disagree with the line drawn between "Honest People" and "Criminals" in relation to gun ownership. That line is a myth. The facts to not support it. The simple fact is that having unlimited private firearm ownership causes murders every year. And that is completely omitting the purchase of weapons by criminals. I have supporting evidence of this if you want, but I haven't taken the time to type in all the cases of "legal" gun owners murdering people.