Knowing Gun Safety

Another family made safer by guns - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Knowing Gun Safety

The parents of a 12-year old boy shot dead in Bastrop County could be held responsible for their son's death.

Investigators say it was their gun that accidentally killed the boy.

Thousands of people in Texas own guns. So how can you stop a tragedy like this one in your family?

Two brothers, one was 12, the other was 13, were playing with a gun. Investigators say the 13-year-old popped the clip, thought the gun was not loaded when he pointed it at his brother pulled the trigger, but a bullet left in the chamber killed the boy.

"I don't sell a gun that I don't tell them, 'Do you have children around? Do children have access to your home?'" Jacqui McBride with McBride's Gun Shop said.

<more>

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=1408978

to prevent this from happening?

That would solve the problem.

a Browning 12 guage shotgun. And instead of instilling some hysterical fear like "Got Kids? DON'T GET GUNS", he taught me proper respect for a potentially dangerous item. 23 years later, I have 7 guns of my own (including that shotgun) and I'm still alive.

B

Your point????

who learned to drive at 16 are also dead. What's YOUR point?

Your experience is anecdotal at best. It does not (and cannot) apply in all cases.

Anybody who chooses a gun has a responsibility to keep that gun secure 24/7. If they can'rt accept that responsibility, then they shouldn't get a gun.

It's anecdotal, at best. It does not (and cannot) apply in all cases.

I have guns and how I secure them is up to me, the owner.

...and they're stolen and used in a crime, there's blood on your hands, IMHO.

"IMHO"

to be inoperable when the magazine is removed? How about requiring them to show when there's a round in the chamber? How about a smart gun that can only be used by its owner?

are offering some suggestions!

OK:
1) I agree with this one. The Browning Hi-Power has something called a magazine disconnect that does not allow the weapon to discharge if there's no magazine.

2) Shouldn't be too hard to manufacture and might actually be worth investigating.

3) If there was smart gun technology that worked 100% of the time, I would be all for it.

B

exist on many guns.

By the way "to be inoperable when the magazine is removed"
1. Not all guns have magazines
2. If the magazine is removed from the gun, it is inoperable (granted there's not one in the chamber).

Many semi-autos, bolt and breech action guns have chamber indicators that were engineered into the design VOLUNTARILY by the manufactures. Oh I’m sorry, I forgot, there are “no” safety features on guns according to some people.

"How about a smart gun that can only be used by its owner"

How about a smart car that prevents people from driving it drunk?

This technology already exists, and is being used in Canada for people convicted of DWI.

"If the magazine is removed from the gun, it is inoperable"
From the story....

"Two brothers, one was 12, the other was 13, were playing with a gun. Investigators say the 13-year-old popped the clip, thought the gun was not loaded when he pointed it at his brother pulled the trigger, but a bullet left in the chamber killed the boy."

Written in true M.M. fashion.
Leave out anything that discredits your argument.

"but a bullet left in the chamber"

Isn't this what I said?

"(granted there's not one in the chamber)"

it can never happen unless it happens?

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

along with all the Smith and Wesson autos except their new 1911, have a mag safety. Take mag out cant pull trigger.

The starter won't turn unless I have the clutch pedal to the follr.

agencies dont use or want a firearm with a the magazine safety or 'smart' gun.

And many handguns have a 'loaded' indicator.

How about requiring handguns

1)to be inoperable when the magazine is removed

They are called magazine safeties, some guns certainly do have them some are impossible to fit with one (ie revolvers), but even with one in a gun you are depending on a mechanical device to stop a gun from doing what you are telling it to do when you pull the trigger. (If you do not want the gun to fire, do not pull the trigger!)

2)How about requiring them to show when there's a round in the chamber?

This one always somewhat amuses me, as if they is going to be a big waving flag proclaiming "CAUTION THIS GUN HAS A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER" or a flashing red light on top of the gun. If someone is totally unfamiliar with the gun they are handling they are not going to know that the red in color nub that is sticking out from the back or side of the slide indicates that the firearm is loaded. It's odd that I don't recall seeing any design proposals for this feature from the antigun/gun control folks. Also how does anyone propose to make this work for revolvers?


3)How about a smart gun that can only be used by its owner?

There aren't any ready for production and there doesn't appear to be any designs that will be ready in the foreseeable future. (Wait, maybe they are stashed on the same shelf that the 100MPG carburetor was hidden on in the 1970s) Other things to consider when you bring up this red herring, why is it that Police are always exempt from most (every single one that I am aware of) proposed laws that mandate smart guns? Is it because the crafters of such legislation know that the technology will not be ever 100% reliable (ALA Windows blue Screen of death) and the police departments would get up in arms over having to use a gun that might not work, but it's OK for us normal folks to wonder if we'll have to reboot our gun when it's needed.

Lastly you do know that the Violence Policy Center is against the idea of "Smart Guns" don't you?

"Got Kids? Got guns? Be a responsible parent, and LOCK YOUR GUNS UP SO THEY CAN'T GET THEM!"

Wouldn't that solve the problem, too?

The right to bear arms comes with responsibilities. Especially a responsibility to keep your guns secured.

I believe the best solution is not to have guns around kids. But of you choose to, keep the kids and the guns as far apart as possible when you're not around.

You can be an effective parent and TEACH you children about firearm responsiblity and safety and not rely on the silly and stupid 'hide the gun' to keep the kids safe.

...kids are curious by nature and some will play with a gun even if you "teach" them otherwise. The safest thing to do is lock the guns up when you're not around.

"Got Kids? Got guns? Be a responsible parent, and
LOCK YOUR GUNS UP SO THEY CAN'T GET THEM!"
Wouldn't that solve the problem, too?

Why, of course it would! Why haven't we thought of that before??

Just like

"Got kids? Got a car? Be a responsible parent, and PUT THE SEATBELTS ON YOUR CHILDREN IN THE CAR!"

solved the problem of children dying in car crashes when they were thrown through windshields. NOT. On the other hand, MAKING and ENFORCING LAWS that require people who are too stupid or evil to voluntarily secure their children to do so, on pain of penalty, might work just a little better.

Got kids? Got a belt? Be a responsible parent, and don't hit your kid with the belt!
Got kids? Got a pitbull? Be a responsible parent, and don't put your kid in a pen with the pitbull!
Got kids? Got an airplane? Be a responsible parent, and don't let your kid fly the airplane!
- Remember that one?

Your attitude -- one that seems to be very common here -- reflects a belief that children are chattel to be left to the tender mercies of their parents in all instances, even in instances in which there is a notorious danger to the children that could be averted in some cases by requiring parents, rather than admonishing them, to protect, or not harm, their children.

... Either that, or a complete disregard for children's welfare, or at least such far higher regard for one's own "rights" that it negates any puny regard one might have for children's welfare. I just don't see a third option.

We KNOW that many laws have both deterrent and instructive effect. If that were not so, I'd have to wonder why those 19th century reformers even suggested such pointless things as child labour laws and anti-child abuse laws. If it is so, I have to wonder why anyone would argue as if laws requiring the safe storage of firearms would *not* have either a deterrent or instructive effect ... or why it is not worth trying to achieve that effect to the extent possible.

Yuppers, we do leave many things about children's safety and well-being up to parents, on the assumption that parents will be clever and decent enough to do what is in their children's best interests.

PARENTS DO NOT ALWAYS DO WHAT IS IN THEIR CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS. Have you somehow managed to miss this little fact in your apparently short time on this earth?

When what they do actually endangers their children, we DO step in and require them not to do it. We don't prohibit parents from compelling their nine-year-olds to wash the dishes, but we DO prohibit them from sending them off to work in the jam factory, the way my grandfather was at the age of 13. We don't prohibit parents from sending their children to bed without supper as an occasional punishment (although we might hear some bells ringing), but we DO prohibit them from denying their children food. And WE DO ATTACH SEVERE SANCTIONS to the prohibitions.

Denying children the protection from the risks presented by firearms that children are entitled to, as beings with rights in our society whom our society recognizes as vulnerable and in need of special protection, risks that we could reduce by making and enforcing laws requiring that the risks be reduced, is simply no better than denying children protection from exploitive labour or starvation.

No one suggests that safe-storage laws would protect children 100% from the risks presented by firearms. NO ONE believes that ANYONE can be 100% protected from ANY risk, really.

But what a lot of us just can't figure out is why ANYONE would believe (or say that s/he believes) that REDUCING the risk to children, when that risk is the risk of DEATH, is not a worthwhile and achievable goal, or why that goal should automatically be secondary to the unfettered exercise of the "rights" of someone else, including parents.

.

...I live in rural Texas so I also have rattlesnakes. They seem to prefer hanging out at the front steps, too. At least the two I've shot were at the front steps. I killed the first rattler with a shovel. A hearty "No thanks!" if you suggest I continue with that method. The gun is strictly for snakes, being a single-shot .410 shotgun it's not good for much else. It's kept unloaded, and the shells are locked up in one of those fireproof safe-boxes. I have the only key. It takes a bit of time to get the gun out and loaded, but as far as I'm concerned if the snake wants to haul ass while I'm fetching said gun I won't attempt to dissuade it.
That said...are there any statistics out there stating the ratio of repuke household gun accidents vs. Democratic household gun accidents? If it's simply Darwinism at work perhaps we shouldn't tinker...;-)

Rick

I use one for dove hunting. Really hones your skill to hit a mach 6 feathered missile with 6 pellets!

B

when she was just a girl. And my family still thinks the statistic about a gun in the home being more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder is not true. I'm pretty sure it must be because I hear these kinds of stories all the time, whereas you almost never hear about someone successfully using a gun to defend themselves.

I don't know what the answer is. All I know is I will never own a gun.

I think the answer lies in parental responsibility in teaching the children how to behave around firearms. That, and securing them when not in use.

B

Most repukes would not.

It's called "gun control".

I believe it should be law that when nobody is home (no adults) all guns are locked in a safe. That would protect the latch-key kids and make it less likely for the gun(s) to be stolen during a break-in.

I couldn't get the dishonest repukes on one conservative forum I debated at to even agree with that.
THEIR kids no how to handle guns, so it's not an issue. Oh ya, and anyone breaking into their house is a criminal, so why should THEY have to suffer because of criminals?

The lying and deceit in the gun debate by repukes is staggering.

I do not advocate legislating responsibility for personal items, guns included.

As adults, parents should feel compelled to teach their kids gun safety, if guns are in the house. And, if they are, they should feel compelled to lock them up.

They should not be compelled by the government to do either.

B

What's wrong with making laws to compell those who don't feel compelled to use common sense with guns?

The repukes hate comparing guns to cars....because it's the best comparison that clearly shows the holes in their arguments. They rebute it with the correct - yet irrelavent - statement that a gun is not a car. However....screw the repukes I say.

If cars - what you would also call a "personal item" I pressume - should and do fall under the legislative unbrella then why not guns?

I fail to see why we need to just trust peoples good judgement to handle their guns correctly. This puts all of us at risk.

If some joker feels it's his right to own 50 guns and not lock them up and they're stolen from his home and sold on the street....what do we do? Lament that he didn't feel "compelled" to safeguard his guns, and express the hope that others will?

Don't drive drunk. Lock up guns not in use.
One is a law everywhere in North America, the other should be.

Should we legislate that everybody wash their hands after wiping their asses because it "puts all of us at risk?"

How about legislating that parents put safety latches on cupboards until their children are 16 years old, because it puts children at risk?

The government has no business telling me how to operate, store, secure, my property ON my property.

They can pass laws on automobile safety because people operate them on public streets.

"If some joker feels it's his right to own 50 guns and not lock them up and they're stolen from his home and sold on the street....what do we do? Lament that he didn't feel "compelled" to safeguard his guns, and express the hope that others will?"

No, you prosecute the HELL out of the person who STOLE the guns and then later sold them on the street.

B

involving licensing and securing dangerous items.

If you are a licensed medical doctor, podiatrist, dentist, veterinarian, or any of several other similar professions, you have the legal right to possess and dispense controlled substances in the course of practicing your profession. But, you have to register that right with the DEA and, usually, your state, in order to exercise it. Both the DEA and the mosts states have laws and/or regs requiring such registrants to keep any controlled substances they own (for dispensing to patients) under lock and key. The drugs can't just be sitting around where anyone can get at them. This is meant to prevent theft and injury to members of the public. The DEA and states regularly inspect registrants to make sure they comply with these laws, amonmg other applicable to controlled drug registrants. I used to do this for a living for the state of Missouri (interesting work, by the way).

It seems to me a small step for the states and the federal gov't to require anyone who is licensed to own a firearm to keep that firearm in a manner that reasonably prevents the theft and/or misuse of the firearm, i.e., it would have to be locked up. Obviously there are far too many gun licensees to inspect, and no one would seriously propose such a thing anyway, so it would work kind of like a seatbelt law--if you're discovered somehow having failed to obey the securing law--perhaps during the course of an investigation into an accident or crime--you become liable for a penalty (whether criminal or only civil, I'm not sure, could be both--penalties for drug security violations are both). Such a penalty might include loss of license for a specified period of time.

Just a thought. Opinions?

Dirk

back on the old board:

here

In that case I was referring to firearms dealers rather than firearms owners, but the principle is analogous: licence to possess hazardous items or materials (or items or materials that are justifiably subject to control for some other reason) can be conditional on compliance with reasonable requirements. I'm so tempted to say "duh".

I humbly quote myself:

even the sainted pharmacists

... not all of whom are employed by Wal-Mart, yet ... are subject to rules regarding the taking of inventory.

http://www.state.sd.us/doh/pharmacy/Apr03.htm

DEA FORM 106

The Board of Pharmacy requires all licensed South Dakota pharmacies to keep a perpetual inventory of Schedule II controlled substances. As mentioned in a previous newsletter, when controlled drug inventories are kept up to date, discrepancies and losses can be discovered quickly and oftentimes resolved.

Some pharmacists have been reluctant to keep their perpetual inventories up to date. This can lead to problems with internal theft and misfiling of controlled prescriptions with noncontrolled prescriptions.

<extraneous info omitted>

DEA Form 106 can be obtained from the DEA Diversion Office, Federal Building, Room 937, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309, phone 515-284-4709; or from the Board of
Pharmacy office, telephone 605-362-2737.

Damn, what a lot of bloody bureaucratic red tape, eh?

... Yup, it's just what you gotta do when your business involves handling, and distributing to the public, potentially harmful things and materials. You are required to demonstrate that you are doing the handling and distributing as required by law, because the potential consequences if you aren't, for the public, can be rather bad.

<extraneous commentary by me omitted>

Obviously, pharmacists are also required to take precautions to prevent loss and theft, not just report them when they happen.

The reasonableness of requiring private individuals to take certain precautions, as a condition of being licensed to possess and use certain items or materials, is just as obviously demonstrable.

That is, as you said:

"It seems to me a small step for the states and the federal gov't to require anyone who is licensed to own a firearm to keep that firearm in a manner that reasonably prevents the theft and/or misuse of the firearm, i.e., it would have to be locked up."

And yes, enforcement could be by way of apprehension in the course of some other investigation -- although I'd note that up here, seatbelt laws are indeed enforced independently of other highway traffic violations. As are drunk driving laws, for instance. "Waiting for an accident to happen" isn't always the wisest course of action.

If the penalties meted out for violations detected in the course of other investigations were sufficiently harsh, they might operate as a deterrent to anyone considering breaking the safe-storage laws.

As I recall, the individual who owned the firearm used in a drive-by murder in Canada's capital a few years ago, which had been stolen from the home where it was illegally and unsafely stored -- Canadian law does require that firearms be stored safely (Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations, (SOR/98-209)) -- was not prosecuted. Big mistake, in my opinion, and very bad message conveyed.

.

Sorry for the duplicate idea, but clearly we both think it's a good one.

Dirk

I don't have the copyright on good ideas -- we've both stated the rather obvious, I'd say. And it seems that ya just can't state the obvious too often.

;)

It seems to me a small step for the states and the federal gov't to require anyone who is licensed to own a firearm to keep that firearm in a manner that reasonably prevents the theft and/or misuse of the firearm, i.e., it would have to be locked up.

Erm, yeah and If I am in my home and find that I need a firearm, I need it NOW not in the amount of time it would take to get it from wherever it is locked up.

And when you say 'licensed to own' what are you talking about? Most states and the Federal government require NO license to own a firearm. It is only a handful of states that require such a thing, and in those states it is used more as a tool to keep the guns out of the hands of the poor and the unconnected (politically) than as a way to prevent crime. Or are you talking about some fanciful thing? Dont get me wrong here, I am all for registration of every gun owner, but I should require NO fee, and be connected to an instant background check, in other words it should work very much like registering to vote.

And as to seatbelts:

Anyone who doesnt were one is an idiot.

Any law that FORCES people to wear one is idiotic.

In my state they passed one (a seatbelt law) about 10 years ago, they said it would only be used as an 'add on' (that the police NEVER could pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt), well guess what? The law changed a couple of years back and now the police can pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt. And since then there have been cases of police using the new seat belt law as an excuse to pull people over and 'check them out'.

I could see a 'safestorage' thing going the same way, with it becoming a 'free' check of anyone's house.

Are you sure you would want to give Asscrap (or some other, maybe even worse, AG) such authority?

"Are you sure you would want to give Asscrap
(or some other, maybe even worse, AG) such authority?"

This is so ass-backwards that I occasionally just have to burst out in incredulous song.

If you don't trust your bleeding government, ELECT A GOVERNMENT THAT YOU TRUST.

How simple is that?

If the government is not to be trusted, why on earth would you think that it would need some excuse to violate your rights? Why isn't it just out there violating them now (say, more than it already is)? You *really* think it couldn't already come up with an excuse to search you or your home if it wanted to??

Conversely, if you place all your faith in your constitution to protect you against the untrustworthy governments you insist on electing, why not address THAT issue -- whether the laws that have been proposed, and not some hypothetical maladministration of those laws, unjustifiably interfere with the exercise of constitutional rights?

The fact that you do not trust your government to engage in bona fide law enforcement, rather than in witchhunts or other perversions of law enforcement, is simply NOT an argument against the advisability, or validity, of laws enacted for a valid public purpose and that stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

A government that is not to be trusted could use food safety inspections to persecute someone or other, for crissakes. Should we repeal, or just not bother enacting, food safety laws??

I think that what we actually do say (well, of course, I come from Utopia; I can't speak for you) is: You may not engage in food safety inspections discriminatorily, for instance to hound Chinese restaurants out of business while letting fish 'n chip joints get away with egregious violations; you may not use food safety inspections as hooks on which to hang searches for persons illegally in the country; and so on.

The rule of law. It's a wonderful thing. If you're not satisfied that it is respected where you are, by the people whose job it is to enact and/or administer the laws, why the hell don't you do something about THAT?

.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Very well done!

B

Relevant and incisive. To the point. A complete rebuttal of my own. At least, I'm sure you think so.

Well, actually I'm not at all sure of that ...

So, are you saying that you live in a dictatorship?

I dunno. Me, I look at a state which has adopted a constitution, which constitution sets out the division of powers among the branches of government, and I look at a situation in which the various branches of government have performed the roles assigned to them in the process of selecting a head of state, and I see an election having been held according to the process laid down for that purpose, and I see the Supreme Court whose job it is to dispose of issues arising in the course of that process doing the job assigned to it, and I see the head of state selected by that process doing his job (which includes appointing his officials) ... and I just dunno, but I don't see a dictatorship.

I see a state that operates according to the rule of law doing just that.

Now, of course, I do suspect that some laws were broken along the way, and that the rule of law might not have been entirely respected. Like, denying citizens their vote based on the colour of their skin, where such discrimination is specifically outlawed -- that's a violation of the bit of the rule of law that holds that the law is no respecter (or disrespecter, of course) of persons.

But when those things happen, what I expect to see, if those responsible for enforcing the law don't do it, is for them to be evicted at the earliest opportunity.

Now when that doesn't happen ... well, sure 'nuff, you got a problem.

And that's your real problem, ain't it? Not Ashcroft. The people who voted for the guy who appointed him ... and for the guys who appointed the other guys who perverted the process to make that guy the head of state. And yeah, I gotta say -- if my neighbourhood were populated by people like that, who knows; I might just get me a gun too.

I like to think that I'd engage in the processes and discourses that would actually CHANGE THE FUCKING SITUATION and SOLVE THE FUCKING PROBLEM, actually, though. Not exacerbate them. But again, that's just me, and I'm just an irrelevant native of Utopia.

.

I'm just an irrelevant native of Utopia.

But seriously, I have seen NOTHING from you that would actually 'change the situation' OR 'solve the fucking problem'. IF anything some of the things you have advocated (through your many postings) might actually 'exacerbate' them.

"But seriously, I have seen NOTHING from you that would
actually 'change the situation' OR 'solve the fucking problem'."

How obvious is it that the situation & problem I was referring to in that sentence was the situation in which elected heads of state and their appointed officials violate the rule of law, and the problem of those violations??

Have we been discussing how to change THAT situation and how to solve THAT problem?

No, I didn't think so.

So was there some reason that I would burst into a discussion about that, in the middle of a discussion of something else, and start offering opinions about THAT situation and THAT problem, and how to change and solve them?

No, I didn't think so.

*You* were the one who raised the Ashcroft might use the law to go on a witchhung spectre.

*I* was the one who said that if you thought this was a possibility, what you needed to do was GET RID OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES THE RULE OF LAW, not get rid of the laws that are themselves, when lawfully enforced, perfectly justifiable restrictions on the exercise of rights.

My point was that you were MISIDENTIFYING the SITUATION that needed changing and the PROBLEM that needed solving. You were using the fact that governments VIOLATE THE RULE OF LAW as some sort of argument against LAWS. It doesn't fly. Get it yet?

Now, shall we do it all over again a few times? I've become quite used to this practice in this forum -- let's just pretend that somebody never said what s/he said, and that what s/he did say meant something quite absurd and other than what s/he did mean ... and go round and round a few times.

Me, I'm probably a little too busy for that silly two-step just now. But you know, if anybody wants to quote me as having actually said anything that s/he has alleged or is thinking of alleging I've said, step right up. Like the proverbial man, eh?

.

You did not suggest to 'get rid of the government' that you dont trust, you suggested not 'electing the government that you dont trust'. You even put it in ALLCAPS to make sure that everyone recognized your point.

Those are two totally different things.

Could you settle on one line of thought please.

And I was using the fact that governments abuse laws as an argument against giving the government MORE laws to abuse. I guess you think that the Patriot Act is a good thing too, after all it is simply MORE laws. How about the Patriot Act II, or Patriot Act III? After all they are simply laws, as as long as our government does not abuse them they are fine, right?

And yes it does fly, Get it yet?

Not.

"Erroneous statement on your part
You did not suggest to 'get rid of the government' that you
dont trust, you suggested not 'electing the government that
you dont trust'. You even put it in ALLCAPS to make sure that
everyone recognized your point."

Have you ever considered learning how to use the cut and paste function? I can instruct you if you like.

Learning and USING that function would save you from making these repeated, egregiously FALSE, statements about other people. Well, maybe.

I DID NOT "<suggest> not 'electing the government that you don<'>t trust'."

I DID NOT SAY THAT.

THIS IS WHAT I SAID:

If you don't trust your bleeding government, ELECT A GOVERNMENT THAT YOU TRUST.

Now, back to those civics lessons. In a democratic system like yours and mine, how exactly does one "get rid of" a government?

Why, do you suppose it could be by ELECTING ANOTHER GOVERNMENT?

And is that WHAT I SAID?

- I said ELECT A GOVERNMENT THAT YOU TRUST.

- You have alleged that I "suggested not 'electing the government that you dont trust'."

To QUOTE you:

"Those are two totally different things."

One happens to be what I said, and the other happens to be something that you apparently made up out of whole cloth, whether because you were too lazy to click on the link and copy what I DID say or for some other reason ... who can say?

.

"And I was using the fact that governments abuse laws as
an argument against giving the government MORE laws to abuse."

Oh look, a statement on point. I think I might faint.

Yes. And I am saying that it is not a valid or sound argument for your purpose.

That will be what I said in the first place, of course, before we went wandering off on this tangential path of yours.

"I guess you think that the Patriot Act is a good thing too,
after all it is simply MORE laws."

Well, I just dunno. If you say so, then I must think that, eh? How are you at recognizing sarcasm? Or are you one of those folks who will now quote (or paraphrase ...) part of that question in an attempt to "prove" that I do "think that the Patriot Act is a good thing too, after all it is simply MORE laws."

Did I say something somewhere that would suggest to you that I think that laws for the sake of laws are a good thing?

That IS what you are suggesting I have done. You are "guessing" that I think that your Patriot Act is a good thing because it is "simply more laws".

Sure thing. I "guess" that I would also think that a law requiring you to jump off the nearest bridge would be a good thing too, eh? After all, it is simply MORE law. How about a law prohibiting people from buying groceries? That would be a law, so I "guess" it would have to be a GOOD LAW, by "my" logic, right? You do understand the purpose of those quotation marks in this paragraph, can I assume? That they mean that I am expressing ideas that ARE NOT MY OWN?

Aristotle is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

Study that carefully.

Now, try this one:

The Patriot Act is a law.
All laws are good.
Therefore the Patriot Act is good.

Now, in the "Aristotle" case, the first two statements ARE TRUE. That's how we know that the third one is true.

Is that the case for the "Patriot Act" example? Are the first two statements true? DID I SAY that the second statement was true?

NO, I DID NOT. So WHY would you ask me a question that IMPLIES, as its PREMISE, that I BELIEVE THAT?

"After all they are simply laws, as as long as
our government does not abuse them they are fine, right?"

There is obviously an invisible person here saying things that I have not heard, to whom you are evidently speaking.

Who said that any law was fine as long as a government did not abuse it?

That last one is not a rhetorical question. It wants an answer. The rest pretty much are.

.

Perhaps you could quote where I said that.

Or perhaps you would just prefer to keep making false statements about me and what I did say.

I mean, if you're not saying that I said that you elected Ashcroft, why would you waste your time telling me that you didn't??

Some things just befuddle me terminally. Persistent deliberate misrepresentation of other people is one of 'em.

.

You are a sensative one arent you.

You make the assertion that 'you shouldnt elect' people that would abuse power. (this is a paraphrased statement)

And I responded that the AG is not an elected position, and that Bush was not elected.

Nowhere did I make any statement about you or what you said, whether false or true.

I simply responded to a smart assed semi-insulting post in a similiar manner.

If you cant stand that sort of rhetoric then dont fling it first.

"You make the assertion that 'you shouldnt elect' people
that would abuse power. (this is a paraphrased statement)

And I responded that the AG is not an elected position, and
that Bush was not elected."

Bully for you.

That isn't a paraphrase, it is a misquote. It is words put in my mouth that I did not say.

Here's what I said, quoting you first:

"Are you sure you would want to give Asscrap
(or some other, maybe even worse, AG) such authority?"

This is so ass-backwards that I occasionally just have to burst
out in incredulous song.

If you don't trust your bleeding government, ELECT A
GOVERNMENT THAT YOU TRUST.

Might we be agreed that Ashcroft is PART OF YOUR GOVERNMENT? Part of the executive branch, appointed by your head of state, who is selected by an electoral process that includes the constitutionally-mandated role played by your judicial branch in the person of your Supreme Court? Ever study civics?

In all systems, the persons who make them up have opportunities to pervert their processes. The solution is to GET RID OF THOSE PERSONS. Again, how obvious is this?

And UNLESS you are saying that you live in a dictatorship, that solution IS AVAILABLE.

"Nowhere did I make any statement about you or what you said,
whether false or true."

Sweetheart, when you RESPOND TO SOMETHING I SAID by saying:

"Erm, We do not 'elect' the AG."

you ARE conveying the message that I SAID that you "elect" your Attorney General. That message, besides being offensively insulting, is FALSE.

If you were NOT attempting to convey that message, you would NOT have said that in response to my post.

How about one of my famous analogies? If you posted a commentary on the type of rock of which the moon is made, and I responded by saying "Erm, the moon is not made of green cheese", do you think you might respond to that by saying "I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS"?

I tend to think you might.

Just as I respond by saying I DID NOT SAY YOU DO ELECT YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL. Because I didn't say that, and one good reason why I didn't say that is because saying it would be asinine.

Me, I just don't tend to assume that people have said ... or attempt to portray them as having said ... asinine things. Two big reasons for that tendency of mine: I am honest, and I don't enjoy wasting my time. But yeah, that's just me.

.

ONE question:

Are you a non-US Citizen or resident (I am saying that because of your use of the phrase 'your government', instead of 'our government') advocating the overthrow or toppling of the existing government of the US?

I ask that because of this statment:

The solution is to GET RID OF THOSE PERSONS. Again, how obvious is this?

and then this:

And UNLESS you are saying that you live in a dictatorship, that solution IS AVAILABLE.

Some people speak to hear themselves talk.

The number of times that I have stated that I am Canadian and reside in Canada, the number of times that I have cited Canadian legislation and the Canadian constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, the number of times that I have cited Canadian statistics and Canadian studies ... and here in this very thread I've repeatedly pointed out how I live in Utopia ... and you ask.

I have never thought that I needed to wear a flag when discussing concepts and facts. Flags aren't really relevant to those things, I'd always thought.

You ask why I said two things:

"The solution is to GET RID OF THOSE PERSONS. Again, how obvious is this?

And UNLESS you are saying that you live in a dictatorship, that solution IS AVAILABLE."

The answer is fairly obvious to me. If you don't live in a dictatorship, you have the option of getting rid of your government by voting it out at the next election. I can't imagine why this meaning would not be obvious to anyone ... or why anyone else might want to imply that it wasn't obvious to him/her.

But you don't just ask. You ask a question in which you imply that I said and meant something else. You say:

"Are you a non-US Citizen or resident ... advocating
the overthrow or toppling of the existing government of the US?"

You assert that you ask that question "because of" the two statements of mine that you quoted, and that I have quoted above.

Well excuse me, but I'm completely failing to see any connection between my statements and your question. I completely fail to see why anyone would read what I said, and immediately think it possible that I was advocating the overthrow of the US government by force. That makes as much sense to me as someone reading what I said and thinking it possible that I was saying that it's going to rain today.

I suggested that the solution to having a government composed of people whom you do not trust was to get rid of them, and that UNLESS YOU LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP that solution is available.

Since, AS YOU PERFECTLY WELL KNOW, I had already suggested that you "elect a government that you trust", I can't for the life of me imagine why you would interpret those statements of mine as meaning something OTHER THAN "get rid of those persons by electing a government you trust".

Maybe you can explain why you would suggest that what I was doing was "advocating the overthrow or toppling of the existing government of the US".

YOU SUGGESTED THAT I HAD SAID THAT. You offered supposed reasons for thinking that I had said that. But in reality YOU HAVE NO REASON to think that I said that.

So why would you ask the question?

Well ... have you ever heard of Joe McCarthy? I'd almost think, from this post of yours, that you took private lessons from him.

The only purpose that such a question serves is to discredit the person to whom it is put, by raising, as a possibility, the fact that that person has said something that s/he never said, or done something that s/he never did.

You seem to have a lot to learn not only about simple logic, but also about the concept and process of democratic discourse. Joe McCarthy was not one of its most devoted practitioners, so I would recommend steering clear of his tactics.

But hey, as long as you're asking me "Are you a non-US Citizen or resident ... advocating the overthrow or toppling of the existing government of the US?", let me ask you: "Are you Joe McCarthy?"

.

"Kettle, you are black." Signed, the Pot.

along with this scheme I would see a uniform system of state-based licensing to own firearms. I'm not sure if the no-fee thing is doable. Last I checked, the Missouri controlled substance registration cost $90 for three years, but that for people with professional degrees making their livelihoods off of their license and registration. Something nominal in this case, is reasonable: $10?

Obviously I can't addrress your point about the need to get to your firearm quickly--that's a unique set of circumstances every time and not it's not possible for a law or set of laws to address it. I'm afraid I would would have to advocate for a secure lock--to prevent theft and accidental misuse--regardless of the perceived need for quick access.

No, I would never advocate or authorize home inspections of firearm security. Inspecting for seatbelt use in cars is different because they're largely on public roads when such inspections happen. I see nothing wrong with that.

Dirk

About costs:

Was that in most incidences the 'license' or 'registration' (when it comes to firearms) is used much as the old 'poll tax' was used. It is used to keep the poor from exercising their rights. And once ANY cost, no matter how small, becomes involved then that would allow ANY cost, no matter how large, to become involved.

about safe storage:

And that was sorta my point, each incident is unique, and NO law will be able to address it. All a safe storage law will do will cause those that follow the law to put themselves at a greater risk (if they have choosen to use firearms for protection), it will not really effect those that choose to disregard the law (either to benefit thier self-defense, or simply because they are irresposible). As a matter of fact I bet those that are irresponsible with firearms already without safe storage laws, will fail to follow the laws even if they were enacted.

about seatbelt laws:

My point is that the 'seatbelt law' has become a way to stop people and and 'check' them out for other offences, be it drugs, or drinking, or failure to have insurance, or whatever. Much as I could easily see a 'safe storage' law becoming, because a toothless inspectionless 'safe storage' law is really useless, it will not change many people's behaviour at all. I could even envision situations where it might actually cause semi-responsible people to become lax about firearms safety (and teaching it to kids), afterall the gun is locked up and it is 'safe', there is no need to teach the kids not to play with it. Locking up the gun is much easier than actually doing the hard part and teaching your kids.

does not end with these words: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed after they pay a "nominal" fee."

B

"I think the answer lies in parental responsibility in teaching
the children how to behave around firearms."

Of course, many people would call that "washing your hands" ...

And if the parents are not "responsible", and the child dies?

Ah -- IT'S THE PARENTS' FAULT.

And when we have someone to blame for what happened, we just don't have to worry about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED -- a child fucking DIED.

Nah, that was the parents' responsibility. They chose to be irresponsible, so their child is dead. Kinda like if they'd chosen to be irresponsible and left their TV out in the rain ...

Why should any of the rest of us care, eh? Hell, it was their child, they were irresponsible, the kid's dead. So buy a new one.

.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And so do many others.

about other's opinions:

Link

... is making me ... how does that song go?

You have cited something I said about an opinion expressed in a discussion that had nothing to do with opinions, in which I suggested that the opinion was irrelevant. IT WAS.

Allow me to quote me, which I find boring but essential when I am misrepresented:

who asked you?

"If it happens JUST ONCE to prevent a crime, then that's good enough for me."

I don't recall anyone calling for anyone else's opinion of anything.

What is this bizarre urge to burp up an opinion every time anyone says anything about anything?

It seemed to me that this thread was about facts, and the collecting and reporting thereof. Might you have any opinion about THAT?

Now, if you had something to present in support of whatever such an opinion might be, wouldn't that be unusual fun ...

The thread you have linked to is about FACTS. About the accuracy of alleged facts relating to a particular phenomenon.

IT WAS NOT ABOUT anyone's opinions about whether the phenomenon (the use of firearms in self-defence) is a "good" thing or a "bad" thing.

Your own excretion, quoted above, in response to the question "how often?" WAS NOT AN ANSWER to that question. It was a belch, a fart, an irrelevant and rude noise made in the middle of a discussion that was actually about something -- and what it was about was NOT your, or anyone else's, opinions of the goodness or badness of anything.

Intelligent, civilized people do not make these kinds of noises in the middle of discussions.

And when intelligent, civilized people do consider it advisable to state an opinion about something, assuming that they do so in a context in which that opinion is relevant to something, they normally offer the reasons why they hold that opinion. Things like facts, and the conclusions they draw from those facts, which lead them to hold the positions they hold.

So, oh look. Did I say I "<don't> care about other's <sic> opinions"?

NO.

But hey, don't let that stop you from saying I did. You wouldn't want to disappoint me, would you?

.

warrant opinions, facts, or both. the fact of the matter is, your post was insensitive to the fact that this is a discussion board in which members are free to post what they want, within the scope of the rules presented by the admin.

So, please, do not attempt to dictate proper content for messages, threads, and posts on this board.

B

"... this is a discussion board in which members are free
to post what they want, within the scope of the rules presented
by the admin.

So, please, do not attempt to dictate proper content for messages,
threads, and posts on this board."

I'll promise never to do that -- if you'll promise never again to FALSELY ACCUSE me of having done that.

Oh, oops. You weren't FALSELY ACCUSING me of having done that?

Then I wonder why it would occur to you to admonish me NOT TO DO IT?

Do you wander down the street saying to people "do not attempt to steal my stereo"? "do not attempt to bite my dog?" "do not attempt to poke me in the eye?"

Do you spend your entire life saying irrelevant things to people, and telling them not to do things that they have never done and you have no reason to accuse them of doing or suspect them of intending to do?

If not, WHY are you telling ME not to do something that I have never done and have no intention of doing?

And do you not at all appreciate the delicious irony of your silly instruction? You telling me not to attempt to dictate proper content? I think I'm going to have to spell it out: why, that's just exactly what you're doing when you tell me not to do it!

I expressed my opinion about the appropriateness of your expression of an opinion in a thread in which it was irrelevant to anything else that had been said, not to mention to the actual topic of the thread.

Y'know what? I get to do that. If you don't like what I say, you get to say so. Ah, freedom of speech, such a wonderful thing ... but sometimes exercised for so completely no reason at all.

Of course, any time that you want to ADDRESS A FACT OR ARGUMENT presented in the course of a discussion, rather than engage in this kind of behaviour, I'd be happy. And you don't need to tell me what your opinion is about that; I think I can guess.

So far, you don't seem to have managed to do that. But hell, it's your inalienable right to insert irrelevant noises into a discussion, I think.

I wonder whether you've dragged this thread far enough down the road to oblivion that it will get locked as a flamefest. Before anybody does that, s/he might just want to consider that post of yours misrepresenting my statements about expressions of opinion, and consider that someone who chooses to post things like that, making it necessary for the misrepresented party to post a correction, really ought not to be able to kill an actual discussion that other people were involved in.

The solution to it all is just so obvious. Nobody should misrepresent what other people say and believe. So simple.

Sorta like how nobody should let their children play with firearms. Amazing how there will always be people who are incapable/refuse to play by the simple, obvious rules of civilized conduct, isn't it?

.

(typo corrected)

I write 2-3 sentences and get back a thesis in return.

Hey, what do you think about the Yankees (the baseball team)? Wait, don't tell me. I don't have time to read 6 pages on why they are going to lose this year.

Wow, you must have to replace your keyboard every day!

what you mean by 'Yankees', otherwise someone might misrepresent what you mean.

You never know some southerner could comment on the north is bad.

Or some Brit could comment on how us 'across the pond' are violent, gunhugging, twits.

Or something similiar.

And one other thing, as an aside, most of the time the people screaming about 'misrepresenting what is said' do it more than anybody else.

Thanks for saving my bacon.

the ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message. The ranting of some people continually repeats the same I'm being persecuted message.

could you repeat that again please :D

Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said. Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said.

You could try asking someone whose ranting repeats that message, or hell, even conveys that message once.

Or you could just keep on misrepresenting what I said.

It sure seems to work better, in the eyes of the cheap seats (do the Yankees have cheap seats?), than engaging in civilized discourse.

.

The only way this kind of thing is going to stop is to start charging people in these situations with involentary manslaughter.

This only represents the obvious examples of cause/effect. What about all the guns that are stolen out of the homes of owners who feel it's their "right" not to lock up their guns?
That's just a blip on the news.....no immediate death apparent.
But then those same guns turn up (without any serial number of course...so the connection isn't PROVEN) killing gangbangers and innocents on the street.

1. Guns are not for "playing". If the parents allowed their kids to treat guns as toys then they're responsible.

2. If the kids were not being supervised when this happened then the parents are responsible - if you're going to allow your kids to even touch your gun then YOU must ensure that it is not loaded when you hand it over to them and you MUST supervise them when they're using it.

3. Rule Number 1 (in my book) of gun safety - never point a gun at anyone unless you want to shoot them. It's almost impossible to shoot someone (ricochets excepted) unless you are pointing a gun in their direction.

4. If the kids found the gun or were able to easily retrieve it from wherever it was stored then the parents are responsible.

5. If the kids hadn't been given gun safety lessons by the parents then the parents are responsible.

I'm sorry, but owning a gun comes with certain responsibilities, especially if you're sharing your house with children. If you choose to exercise your "right" to have a gun then you MUST protect those around you from the potential danger it represents.

On top of these responsibilities, a trigger lock or a built-in mechanism to prevent the gun firing a chambered round once the mag is removed might have prevented this particular tragedy, but as guns will always be a danger children should always be protected.

If you teach the kids about guns. Thing's like this doesn't happen.

I have had gun around me all my life and my dad took the time 2 teach me about guns. He did not hide the fact he had a guns in the house. To this day, if i pick up a gun i look to see if it's loaded, even at gun stores.

The parents need to teach there kids about guns, just like you need to teach a kid not to run in parking lots.

then kids won't die of radiation poisoning.

Odd how we still put up great big fences with locked gates around nuclear power plants, and enact laws that require people to keep radioactive materials where kids can't get at 'em.

.

I have worked with radioactive materials for 2 years for E-beam service. Thay have a website if you want me to find it.

You can walk all around a nuclear power plant and be fine. Just don't go it to the vault.:) The fences are not for stop kids.The fence are for stop idiots.