Kennedy

I think he specifically asked about right-wing rhetoric and this incident. Got anything on that? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/local/gardena-high-shooting-20110118 Aparently the LAPD Chief doesn't know fuck all about firearms, and doesn't have good enough advisors to educate him for a press release. edit to add: or the reporters got the quote very, very wrong. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Not really. But it was a nice slam against responsible gun owners who frown on people who cause negligent discharges. Negligence according to wiki witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I didn't want this thread to spiral down into semantics, but there is a difference between an accident and a negligent action. Negligence is specifically related to the level of care expected of someone. If a person is driving on a clear open road paying close attention at a reasonable speed and a deer runs out of some trees and strikes the car and the car slides off the road into a tree, no one would call that negligence. But have that driver doing 70 mph through a neighborhood (35 mph zone) at dusk after an ice storm and the driver pulls a hard turn and slides off the road into a tree nearly hitting a child, and no one doubts negligence. See the difference? If I have a gun with the safety on in a holster on my hip and I trip, without touching the gun, and the gun goes off when I hit the ground, that is an accident, and good cause to lok at the mechanics of the gun and any care the gun has or hasn't received. If I am holding and playing with a loaded gun, keeping my finger on the trigger while trotting through a crowded school auditorium, and I trip and fall and the gun goes off, that is not an accident. That is negligence. And just an FYI, the people charged with investigating and preventing vehicle "accidents" don't call them that. They call them collisions, or another appropriate term. Just because ignorant or lazy people call them that doesn't make it the correct term. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but I'm pretty sure I already answered that. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I've been the subject of and witness to enough reported events to know that even if I were listed, reporters could very likely have it completely wrong. I am interested to know why kind of gun it was, and will only put faith in reported info when attributed to a named source from LAPD. Not really, and I expected better from you. Like I said, it's far more likely that something in the bag mashed thebtrigger than that the gun fired just from being dropped. If the gun did go off, and nothing in the bag caused it and it is not on the list, then it says absolutely nothing about the list. If the gun went off just from being dropped and it is on the list, then I expect it suffers from manufacturer defect or lack of maintenance. I will hold out that there is some slight possibility that the gun invloved is a model that passed the drop test, did notnjave the trigger mashed by something in the bag, and does not suffer frI'm a defect and unprepared damage, but the probability igniter is somewhere in the neighborhood of Elvis staging a come back tour. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well, I wasn't there, and I haven't talked to the witnesses, but like the LAPD, I'm skeptical of the "he just dropped it" story. Of course, gun do tend to go bang when the trigger is pressed. It doesn't have to be a finger. I have seen a trained professional injured in a negligent discharge (I refuse to call them accidental discharges, since they are generally caused by negligence, not accidents). The professional in question was wearing an I'll fitting shirt that was not tucked in. When he holstered, finger off the trigger, the shirt material bunched in the trigger guard, and as he pressed the pistol into the holster, the shirt pulled the trigger. I'm picturing something similar here. All it takes is something getting caught, and when it hits the floor, BANG. That being said, it is possible for firearms to malfunction, or discharge when they shouldn't. Examples are slam-firing old semi auto pistols, or the rifle that if a small piece dislodged would fire a chambered round when the safety was moved to "off" without the trigger being pulled. Those are, however, the exception. Generally "accidents" are the result of someone failing to follow basic safety rules. So tell me quade, since you are making negative statements about people opposed to overzealous testing that costs tens of thousands of dollars, was the gun involved in your article a gun that never passed California's drop test? Or do you think maybe we should address the fact that some goober decided to get a gun (probably illegally), put it in a bag unsecured, and bring it to school? If there was nothing else in the bag, and this was a gun model that never passed CA's drop tests, and it went off from being dropped, then you have legitimate concerns and I share them. But I have to be honest, those look like pretty big ifs to me. Now I'm waiting for the professor to pop up and tell is how gun free school zone laws are dismal failures because they "failed to prevent this from happening." witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No. You don't. DWI laws are specific to each state. Most people don't even realize DWI can mean different things. Also, I'm unaware of any states that still use the "under the influence" language. One state uses "operate a vehicle while impaired." North Carolina calls the law Driving While Impaired, but the legal language is "operate a vehicle while subject to some impairing substance." Very few states mention a motor vehicle. Any electric motorized conveyance can qualify. Any vehicle with more than 50cc displacement can qualify. A bicycle can qualify. A lawn mower can qualify. And yes, a horse can qualify. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Jan 11, 2011, 3:29 PM. Also in this very thread. Not my problem if you won't read opinions you disagree with. Not my problem if you won't read. Come on professor. I didn't even ask for a link. Just a post number of copied shortcut would have done. You were too lazy. So I checked your posts in this thread. On page 4, you have two posts where you say nothing other than people are denying that a problem exists. On page 5, you said While I disagree, since the purpose of the law is not to prevent the possibility of any bad thing every happening, I think we can all agree that this does not constitute "a clear position on what the laws concerning firearms should and should not be." Page 6 you said Motor vehicle laws fail to prevent deaths related to motor vehicles. DWI laws fail to prevent drunks and chemically impaired people from driving. Laws and codes/ordinances fail to prevent deaths in swimming pools and bathtubs. If you look at injury or death to number of users, I bet even rigs looks more dangerous than guns. Do we need container, harness, and canopy control laws to prevent jump related deaths? Or would you "defend the status quo that has proven so hopelessly inadequate to prevent" horrible loss of life and limb? Either way, still not "a clear position on what the laws concerning firearms should and should not be." Later on 6, you said and then finally, you called someone a strawman. So tell me, professor, where in this thread have you "stated a clear position on what the laws concerning firearms should and should not be," so that we can all see your path to a better system. As to your Jan 11, 2011, 3:29 PM, well, it's obviously not in this thread, since I started it Jan 11, 2011, 9:11 PM. Over in the "Arizona Congresswoman Shot" thread, there aren't any posts at 3:29pm by you or anyone else. I even checked 4:29pm and 5:29pm to account for timezones. It's not in either of the threads on the topic for that date. I'm not checking every thread to see your posts. Can you copy and paste a url? I did find this post by you. (see how easy that was?) All it says is that you aren't against sane law abiding citizens being able to own firearms. Of course, unless you require every gun owner to submit to psych eval, I don't know how you would distinguish sane from insane. If you want to talk about improving care for mentally ill or handicapped people, I'm all for that, but that's not a gun law issue. That is improving the mental health care system and doesn't require any change to gun laws to improve the situation. For the law abiding descriptor, well as long as you're not a gun-banner who thinks stop sign violations or simple misdemeanors should cause forfeiture of rights, we can find common ground on the law-abiding requirement. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It's a shame that you would give up rights that helped found this country and kept us safe since. Wasn't too safe for Rep. Giffords, the other Loughner victims, Cho's victims, JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan, Abe Lincoln, and hundreds of thousands of other gun victims over the years. Their rights were totally denied. And that's why it's the government's job to protect our rights, and punish those who have violated them. It's not the government's job to make sure nothing bad ever happens to you. In places that try that, the government's efforts to protect your and their side effects are generally worse than the thing they are trying to protect you from in the first place. Blame the person who violates another's rights. Blame a society that failed to help those incapable of helping themselves (your "nutters" and "loonies"). For liberty's sake, and for your own good, don't ask the government to control everyone just to make you happy. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The four Bs pf fighting: beans, bullets, bandages, and bad guys; how many have you got and how many do you need? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Holy Crapanzana! I'm a little jealous, a little disturbed, and very curious. Full auto? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I caught the sarcasm, but on a serious note there are places where you can shoot birds sun up to sundown with no limit other than your ammo supply and motivation. Twelve round tubes are unnecessary in most of the US, but there are other places to shoot. I saw a guy coming back from South America picking up his shotgun at the US Air terminal. It was magazine fed. He said he always thought box fed shotguns were stupid until he went down there. When a thousand birds fly by, even a long tube isn't enough. He said he swapped out mags like he was plinking 223 at home. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

(A) If you could point us to the post where you gave stated a clear position on what the laws concerning firearms should and should not be, or even just a rough idea of how to keep "loonies" from running around with guns, please link us to it, and I'll happily apologize and we can talk about it. I've done so several time here in the forums. (B) Should I shrilly scream strawman, as I've learned from you? I tend to not swim in African rivers. It's not healthy. The USA has a violent crime problem. I haven't seen anyone deny that. So rather than keep repeating your same invalid statement, would you care to offer some suggestion or idea? You know, some statement that can be argued discussed and defended on its own merits, regardless of whether a person denies the need for discussion. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well, if you would ever take a clear position, maybe we could discuss it. Until then, we have to guess exactly where you stand. Come on, give us a real person to talk to instead of hiding behind vague generalities and then screaming "strawman" at every argument you don't want to answer. Do you doubt that there are politicians and lobbying groups whose ultimate goal is banning the vast majority of people from owning the vast majority of guns? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I think everyone agrees that there is a violent crime problem, and everyone agrees that we don't want crazy people running around with firearms. So what isn't that you think people are denying? If that's your answer, then you must be ok with the way things are. You must realize that just that sort of thing happens every time a gun control law is discussed. So do you have any ideas on what you want them to do, or is your only answer "more" for a solution? If your only idea is to convene some experts, what would you say if they suggested continuing the system as is, or fewer controls? Do they only count as experts if they agree with you? If so, what should agree with you about, since all we've seen from you is calls for "more" control? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Jean, what good idea? That is what they do every time they talk about a new gun law, or updating old ones. If that's what you want to happen, then you should be happy with the laws in place. If you're not happy with current laws, then, for the love of all that's holy, suggest a a better idea. So far kallend hasn't suggested a single idea that has a chance to prevent Tucson II. The only idea he has mentioned to improve things is requiring background checks for private sales. While I'm willing to discuss this idea, it has no bearing on what happened already. Loughner bought his pistol from an FFL. If you actually have an idea other than the status quo, please share. We've been asking for twenty pages. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

King is a moderate Republican from a state with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. He has often worked with Bloomberg on gun issues. It remains to be seen whether any of his fellow Republicans would sign on to such a bill. Remember, the new GOP-led House is composed of many members that have strong pro-gun ratings from the National Rifle Association. Personally, I think he's an idiot. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Doing a more effective check for mental illness does not constitute a ban on voting. So are you willing to turn over your health records and see a state sponsored shrink before casting a ballot in 2012? 1. AGAIN: Get deniers like you, Mike and Marc to admit that there is a problem. 2. Engage experts in constitutional law, criminology and psychiatry to address the problem. 1. There are three problems to address in this thread. One is the violent crime problem. Another is a poor system for identifying and caring for mentally ill. The third is people who prefer expediency to protection of liberty. 2. OK, so you don't have any ideas or suggestions of your own. Thanks. Feel free to continue sniping at other from the margins. (of course that means you are in fact marginalized) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No, that is just as much a strawman as Mike's arguments. Requiring a background check for private sales does not constitute a gun ban. It just puts them on the same footing as sales by licensed dealers. Doing a more effective check for mental illness does not constitute a gun ban. You have the makings of a lawyer. Oh, wait... I'm not going to bother quoting myself, but I'm going to ask AGAIN. What change do you suggest that would prevent this from happening? What should we do to keep guns out of the hands of loonies? Do you have any specific ideas to improve the current system? I finially saw you put out an idea for changing things on page twenty of the thread, where you mentioned background checks on private sales. Do tell, exaclty what effect that would have had on either Tuscon or VaTech. From what I remember, both purchased their firearms from FFLs. If you want us to discuss your ideas, rather than "strawmen," then tell us where you stand. Give us a real man to talk to, instead of the scarecrow. What is your better idea? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well technically the "bullseye" was placed over a district. I haven't seen any pics of target symbols placed over politicians' faces, have you? Also, crosshairs are not the same as bullseye (whether you think the Palin graphic had anything to do with this or not). Crosshairs imply a vertical and horizontal line that intersect in the center of a circle. Bullseye implies concentric circles with alternating bands of color. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

FIFY Yep. Bad folks can do bad things with lots of items. So why focus on the tool? You're a smart guy with significant education. Do you think, were you sufficiently motivated, you'd be unable to build a bomb? Do you think you could build a gun? I'll tell you, it's a lot easier than building a car. It's an idea we can all agree on, but there are no easy methods. Personally I'd strongly support taking a lot of money away from the courts and moving it over to treatment facilities for the chemically dependant and mentally compromised. In other countries' experience, it's nearly a one to one dollar trade. But that's not a popular idea in the US right now. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

+1 to just about every one of lawrocket's posts in this thread. Our system is based on the ideal that it is better for ten guilty men to go free rahter than have one innoccent imprisoned.* Yep, we have the worst court system in the world, except for all the others. And let's not forget, cars kill more folks than guns year in and year out. Hit and Run "to be famous" ...run these kids over chappaquiddick woman runs down mother and daughter etc, etc, etc. We've got to keep these weapons away from loonies and druggies! Goodness! Oh no, they're already licensed insured and regulated by government bureacrasy. What can we do?!? [/sarcasm] * - yeah I know it doesn't always work that way, but that's the premise. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I made this post about ten pages ago. I still don't get it. Does anyone disagree with my assertion that with any other tool, we wouldn't be having this conversation? I also came up with a simple three step process for solving the problem of loonies with guns. It's even scalable to your level of comfort. So, does anyone have a good idea on how to improve step one two or three? Please, share them. For the children. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yes, certain clearly defined sets of people have lost their rights. Felons, by definition, have been convicted of a felony (due process in a court of law). They also have a process by which they can appeal the conviction, and if the conviction stands, a process by which they can petition the courts for restoration of their rights. I suppose this process is not all that different from having a person committed to a mental health institution, or declared incompetant (the current standards for required refusal of sale). Other than "do something now, for the children," does anyone that's focused on the gun have any suggestions for improving gun laws? Preventing violent gun crime by going after guns is like preventing forgery by going after pens, or preventing drunk driving by going after alcohol and cars. I'm not a fan of prior restraint. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*