Guns

[onan]

Zero tolerance almost always seems to be excessive. I would imagine some policy includes caps as a danger. Whether it is a left leaning plot... I doubt it.


Problem is if the kid had done any semblance of harm, god only knows what the wrath of some overprotective BPD mother would have brought upon the school.

[Sardondi]

Zero tolerance almost always seems to be excessive. I would imagine some policy includes caps as a danger. Whether it is a left leaning plot... I doubt it.

Problem is if the kid had done any semblance of harm, god only knows what the wrath of some overprotective BPD mother would have brought upon the school.

Between you and me - yep. The real reason for "zero tolerance" of anything in school systems - from expulsions for possession of cold medicine, to fighting with another student, to a student's father having borrowed the student's pickup truck to go duck hunting and then having overlooked his shotgun where it had been left under the back seat - is to avoid Americans' crazy over-litigiousness.

The "tough on (fill-in-the-blank)" attitude of school boards has nothing to do with the safety of kids and everything to do with the (financial) safety of the school board and (most importantly) the board members themselves. No doubt the board's counsel told them that, if there is no discretion permitted, there can be no violation of discretion as the basis of a civil suit for gazillions when a grieving parent with a jackal lawyer looks to make someone with money responsible for some horrendous crime instead of the (almost certainly broke) criminal. And so the tyranny of lawyers over so much of American society now extends to our schoolchildren and their parents too. 

But in public I'll deny I ever said this. (Actually there's still plenty of left-side misbehavior to call them on in this case and hundreds of others.)
________________________________________________________________________
But here's one which is legitimately roast-able. The toy gun 10-day suspension of the 5-year-old who was interrogated for 2 hours before parents were called to come take their mass-murderer-in-training away? He was braced until he peed his pants. It was far more important to find out if the parents had guns than to keep little Johnny's Underoos dry. (Besides, man, it really cracked the case when the principal laughed at his pissed pants: the kid broke open like a double-barrel shotgun, and admitted that Mommy had let him shoot the cap gun at home. Oh yeah, there's a bonus coming for the principal this year baby!)

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/31/kindergartener-interrogated-over-cap-gun-until-he-pees-his-pants-then-suspended-10-days/

[onan]

________________________________________________________________________
But here's one which is legitimately roast-able. The toy gun 10-day suspension of the 5-year-old who was interrogated for 2 hours before parents were called to come take their mass-murderer-in-training away? He was braced until he peed his pants. It was far more important to find out if the parents had guns than to keep little Johnny's Underoos dry. (Besides, man, it really cracked the case when the principal laughed at his pissed pants: the kid broke open like a double-barrel shotgun, and admitted that Mommy had let him shoot the cap gun at home. Oh yeah, there's a bonus coming for the principal this year baby!)

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/31/kindergartener-interrogated-over-cap-gun-until-he-pees-his-pants-then-suspended-10-days/

Yeah, I got nothing but speculation on this. I can usually recall some incident that corrolates to some level of interpretation and understanding. Here... tough to find some lynch pin to logic. Further, only suspected criminals are questioned for that length of time. A five year old doesn't have 2 hours of history on any subject.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Whether it is a left leaning plot... I doubt it...

The thing is, this is just not how reasonable people operate.  This is how tyrants operate.  It isn't just this one school or schools in general, this creeping tyranny seems to manifest itself in various ways in so many of our institutions.  Certainly the schools.  Certainly government institutions.  But it's even in most (nearly all?) well known non-governmental institutions that a reasonable person would think of as non-partisan.

[RealCool Daddio]

This month in Texas, my new home, there have been two cases of two year olds being shot to death.  And these are not isolated incidences.  I agree the school in Sardondi's post over reacted, but it seems that there is a chronic under reaction to the litany of stories of children dying from gunshot wounds.  I know some here are sick and tired of Brits - or expat hosers in my case - chiming in on the amount of gun crimes in the USA, but this stuff is going in in my backyard.  I will continue to be shocked and outraged on my neighbours  behalf, if that's alright.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/05/31/trenton_mathis_accidental_shooting_another_day_another_accidental_child.html[/size]

[Juan]

I hate to sound callous, but stories like this need to be put in perspective.  For instance, in my city there have been at least 4-children this year who have escaped their homes and drowned in nearby retention ponds.  I regret that any child dies, but reality is that people of all ages die from accidents every day.

[RealCool Daddio]

I hate to sound callous, but stories like this need to be put in perspective.  For instance, in my city there have been at least 4-children this year who have escaped their homes and drowned in nearby retention ponds.  I regret that any child dies, but reality is that people of all ages die from accidents every day.

Not callous at all, Fill.  And it is true that accidents happen.  The difference is that guns are specifically designed to cause death - ponds and pools aren't.


I can guarantee you that if a serial murderer of children were on the loose in Texas, it would be front page news daily.  But kids getting their faces blown off?  Meh. 


I love my new home here in America, and love my American friends and neighbours, yet I find it an almost daily source of amazement that you can absolutely loose your shit over any number of perceived slights to your country, but seem to shrug off the absolutely shocking amount of gun violence in your streets and homes.  There are civil wars going on that have less shooting.


Before the "you're just a lefty, and want Obama to come take our guns" nut jobs chime in, I have fired more rounds than I can count, and sent thousands of varmints to meet their maker.  I was out plinking with my old man, with my own rifle, well before I had hair one on my nut sack.  I have no issue with gun ownership.  But the stuff that is being sold, at literally dozens of stores within miles of my home, are weapons of mass destruction, and I can't think of one sane reason why anyone would think that is a good idea. 

[FightTheFuture]

But the stuff that is being sold, at literally dozens of stores within miles of my home, are weapons of mass destruction, and I can't think of one sane reason why anyone would think that is a good idea.  

I can think of a perfect reason; it`s a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Don`t like it? Change it. That is YOUR right. Good luck with it.

[onan]

But the stuff that is being sold, at literally dozens of stores within miles of my home, are weapons of mass destruction, and I can't think of one sane reason why anyone would think that is a good idea.

As much as I don't want to argue, RCD, WMD's is probably a stretch. But yes gun shows do bring a crap ton of weapons into an environment that is rife for exploitation. 99% (just a guess) of the people attending have no plans of harm. But the less than 1% also there, well the possibilities are scary. But that can really be said about the population at a football game as well.

I can think of a perfect reason; it`s a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Don`t like it? Change it. That is YOUR right. Good luck with it.

I don't think that is a strong argument supporting gun shows. the constitution doesn't have a second amendment addendum about selling firearms.
the issue may be covered in commercial law. But gun shows, by purpose or accident, flaunt laws meant to give protection to citizens. If I wanted to, I could go to a gun show and buy as many guns as I can afford from licensed dealers. Those dealers have to conform to the laws regarding background checks. However, once I own those guns, I am a private collector and I do not have to perform any background checks. There is a question when buying a firearm that the purpose of buying isn't to sell that firearm to another, but that is a thistle in the wind.

[RealCool Daddio]

I can think of a perfect reason; it`s a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Don`t like it? Change it. That is YOUR right. Good luck with it.

There is no need to change the constitution.  The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that reasonable limits are constititutionaly valid.  See District of Columbia v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

[RealCool Daddio]

As much as I don't want to argue, RCD, WMD's is probably a stretch. But yes gun shows do bring a crap ton of weapons into an environment that is rife for exploitation. 99% (just a guess) of the people attending have no plans of harm. But the less than 1% also there, well the possibilities are scary. But that can really be said about the population at a football game as well.

I confess WMD might be hyperbolic.  But I can buy military grade armaments with ease.  These are high tech killing machines, and are designed as such. When otherwise sensible rights are being abused, it is the duty of government and the courts to step in and prevent that abuse, isn't it?

[onan]

I confess WMD might be hyperbolic.  But I can buy military grade armaments with ease.  These are high tech killing machines, and are designed as such. When otherwise sensible rights are being abused, it is the duty of government and the courts to step in and prevent that abuse, isn't it?

Abuse should always be limited. However, the argument of high tech is really not the issue. And the problem almost all who want to regulate firearms continually flounder in, is picking the wrong target. A point to make here, most crimes with firearms, including murder and suicide do not use  high tech weapons. So the question are high tech weapons an abuse? I would say no. The stats on acquiring "illegal" weapons show that less than 1% are from gun shows... in reality that is still a large number... by itself. But when compared to the number of other illegally gotten firearms, mostly by third party sellers and then by fraudulent purchases at dealerships, gun shows are not where the abuse is happening.


Sadly this is an issue that many times is more hyperbolic than substantive... on both sides. Both sides at times are hysterical in their talking points.

[Juan]

The "gun show exception" came about in a strange way.  Most of the small gun dealers had federal dealers licenses, but during the Clinton Administration, for a reason I don't remember, ATF stopped issuing licenses to these small dealers.  So the dealers began operating under the individual to individual exception - even at gun shows. 

I always thought we'd be better off as a society if these dealers were still licensed.  If the ATF thought its actions would limit the number of dealers, it didn't.

Government seems to think without considering the creativity of people.  When seat-belt interlocks were first put on cars (1973 or so), it took filling station mechanics 10-minutes and a screwdriver to defeat the best laid plans of thousands of bureaucrats and automotive engineers.

[RealCool Daddio]

Abuse should always be limited. However, the argument of high tech is really not the issue. And the problem almost all who want to regulate firearms continually flounder in, is picking the wrong target. A point to make here, most crimes with firearms, including murder and suicide do not use  high tech weapons. So the question are high tech weapons an abuse? I would say no. The stats on acquiring "illegal" weapons show that less than 1% are from gun shows... in reality that is still a large number... by itself. But when compared to the number of other illegally gotten firearms, mostly by third party sellers and then by fraudulent purchases at dealerships, gun shows are not where the abuse is happening.


Sadly this is an issue that many times is more hyperbolic than substantive... on both sides. Both sides at times are hysterical in their talking points.

All good points, Onan.  But surely it is reasonable to limit access to certain types of "arms", isn't it? Assault rifles, .50 caliber sniper rifles, sub macine guns, RPGs?  Tanks, thermonuclear devices?  I know, hyperbole again , but some line must be drawn somewhere between personal freedom and anarchy. 

[onan]

All good points, Onan.  But surely it is reasonable to limit access to certain types of "arms", isn't it? Assault rifles, .50 caliber sniper rifles, sub macine guns, RPGs?  Tanks, thermonuclear devices?  I know, hyperbole again , but some line must be drawn somewhere between personal freedom and anarchy.

Absolutely, but again, most crimes are committed with hand guns not the weapons you are asking about. At some point it is important to recognize how well most gun owners manage their weapons.

[RealCool Daddio]

Absolutely, but again, most crimes are committed with hand guns not the weapons you are asking about. At some point it is important to recognize how well most gun owners manage their weapons.

While I agree that most gun owners are responsible, I am not sure that I agree that that means the status quo is fine (if that's the point you are trying to make).  Most drivers are responsible, but we make them obtain a license, insurance, etc.  But when similar restrictions are suggested for guns, a lot of those same responsible gun owners freak out.  You are a gun owner, Onan, and based on your posts a person I would gladly describe as the very definition of reasonable.  Would you object to having to be licensed to own guns and ammo?

[onan]

While I agree that most gun owners are responsible, I am not sure that I agree that that means the status quo is fine (if that's the point you are trying to make).  Most drivers are responsible, but we make them obtain a license, insurance, etc.  But when similar restrictions are suggested for guns, a lot of those same responsible gun owners freak out.  You are a gun owner, Onan, and based on your posts a person I would gladly describe as the very definition of reasonable.  Would you object to having to be licensed to own guns and ammo?

Nope, I already am. well to own firearms is a grey area. I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Which in NC allows for more freedon in transporting weapons. Anyone can buy ammunition.

[RealCool Daddio]

Nope, I already am.

Really?  I don't know enough about US gun laws, I guess.  Is that a state thing, concealed carry permit or the like?

[onan]

Really?  I don't know enough about US gun laws, I guess.  Is that a state thing, concealed carry permit or the like?

Stevesh knows this stuff better than me. In NC, a conceal carry weapon permit allows a person to carry a weapon concealed. Anyone can open carry a weapon. When driving, without a ccw license one must have the gun secured and unloaded in a trunk or locked box. Open carry does not pertain to having a weapon on your car seat even in line of sight. The officer can make the claim that a weapon on your car seat is hidden from normal view until well within striking distance.


In NC, if I am pulled over by police, it is my responsibility to inform the officer of my licensure when requested to give my identification.


In the US there are somewhere between 8,000 and 20,000+ gun deaths per year. I don't know anyway to distance that fact from gun ownership. Would, if magically possible to remove all guns tomorrow, gun deaths decrease? yes... and this is where I lose support from those that want stricter gun control. The right to own guns is probably our most expensive right, because it costs us lives. I for the most part am ok with that. I do my best to be on my guard and I expect that from anyone else with a firearm.

[RealCool Daddio]

Stevesh knows this stuff better than me. In NC, a conceal carry weapon permit allows a person to carry a weapon concealed. Anyone can open carry a weapon. When driving, without a ccw license one must have the gun secured and unloaded in a trunk or locked box. Open carry does not pertain to having a weapon on your car seat even in line of sight. The officer can make the claim that a weapon on your car seat is hidden from normal view until well within striking distance.


In NC, if I am pulled over by police, it is my responsibility to inform the officer of my licensure when requested to give my identification.


In the US there are somewhere between 8,000 and 20,000+ gun deaths per year. I don't know anyway to distance that fact from gun ownership. Would, if magically possible to remove all guns tomorrow, gun deaths decrease? yes... and this is where I lose support from those that want stricter gun control. The right to own guns is probably our most expensive right, because it costs us lives. I for the most part am ok with that. I do my best to be on my guard and I expect that from anyone else with a firearm.

Got it and thanks for indulging/educating me.  I wholly agree that more guns = more gun deaths. Toronto is the 4th largest city in North America, and has between one tenth and one twentieth the gun murders of Chicago, depending on the year. Contrary to popular belief, owning a gun is pretty straightforward in Canada.  Take a safety course, pass the test, get a license.  There are about 2 million licensed in Canada, or about 1 in 15 people.  There are restrictions on the type of weapons, though, and conceal carry permits are very, very rare.  This system seems to work quite well in limiting the supply of weapons, while still allowing responsible gun owners reasonable access. 

[Juan]

Also, to get a concealed carry permit, in the states I'm familiar with, one has to take a course covering safety and applicable laws. 

[FightTheFuture]

There is no need to change the constitution.  The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that reasonable limits are constititutionaly valid.  See District of Columbia v. Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

The Heller case struck down a very obvious unconstitutional ban on the ownership of handguns within the DC area. And while Alito was careful in his wording ("It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,"), it`s important to note that most, if not all, responsible gun owners have always understood certain limitations to the second amendment, e.g. stinger missiles, tanks, etc., in other words, weapons not  reasonably suitable for private ownership.   [/font][/size] [/font][/size]

[/font][/size]
I believe you have a problem with semi-automatic firearms being sold in stores all around you, which you describe as "WMD". It is not unreasonable to expect a private citizen may own a semi-automatic firearm, and they certainly do not qualify as WMD.[/font][/size]

[RealCool Daddio]

The Heller case struck down a very obvious unconstitutional ban on the ownership of handguns within the DC area. And while Alito was careful in his wording ("It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,"), it`s important to note that most, if not all, responsible gun owners have always understood certain limitations to the second amendment, e.g. stinger missiles, tanks, etc., in other words, weapons not  reasonably suitable for private ownership.   [/font][/font]
[/font]
I believe you have a problem with semi-automatic firearms being sold in stores all around you, which you describe as "WMD". It is not unreasonable to expect a private citizen may own a semi-automatic firearm, and they certainly do not qualify as WMD.[/font]

Over a span of approximately 10 minutes, Adam Lanza fired 154 rounds from a Bushmaster XM15-E2S assault rifle, killing 20 children and 6 adults.  If that does not qualify as mass destruction, I don't know what does.

[FightTheFuture]

Over a span of approximately 10 minutes, Adam Lanza fired 154 rounds from a Bushmaster XM15-E2S assault rifle, killing 20 children and 6 adults.  If that does not qualify as mass destruction, I don't know what does.

Gary Ridgeway murdered a great many more people than Lanza could ever dream of, and he did it with electrical cords, belts, ropes and fishing line; by your definition, all weapons of mass destruction.


The point is, if a crazy person wants to kill, he will kill. Some choose to go about it in a "blaze of glory and lead" and some choose a more deliberate, methodical approach, none-the-less, the end result is, sadly, the same. 


Gun homicides are in a steep decline as gun sales have risen. The more concealed weapon permits issued; the lower the crime rate goes. If you truly are concerned about gun related homicides and crime, you`ll petition your local politico to ban, not firearms, but firearm-free zones like the theater in Aurora Colorado and the school in Newtown CT.

[RealCool Daddio]

Gary Ridgeway murdered a great many more people than Lanza could ever dream of, and he did it with electrical cords, belts, ropes and fishing line; by your definition, all weapons of mass destruction.

Uh, no actually.  By my definition, and pretty much everyone else's, Ridgeway was a serial killer - key word, serial.  Lanza was a mass murderer - note the key word "mass".


Do you know of any cases of someone killing 26 people in ten minutes with a belt?

[Ruteger]

Liberalism is a mental disorder. How the English men (and women) can let this happen to their own country and sit idly by makes no sense unless you understand it as a mental disorder.

I recall years back now, something about British school children no longer being served traditional Hot Cross Buns on Good Friday for the same reason. 

Shouldn't the first rule of immigrants be that they fit in to their new country, not demand it be the other way around.  Giving in to this stuff is seen as a sign of weakness and will only encourage more demands and radicalization.  These troublemakers need to be better screened before arriving, and if they get past that, returned home. 

They've been done a favor being granted access to someone else's country, to have been brought in to the modern world.  They aren't owed anything - just the opposite.  Their death cult religion can not to be catered to without negative consequences down the road.

[PB the Deplorable]

Liberalism is a mental disorder. How the English men (and women) can let this happen to their own country and sit idly by makes no sense unless you understand it as a mental disorder.

It's happening around us here right now. 

Just a couple of examples:  Obama actually instructed NASA that one of their top priorities is outreach to Muslims - to, in his words, 'make them feel good about themselves' (like that's possible).  What a virulent 'religion' of mostly new immigrants has to do with space exploration - other than more destructive politics from you know who - has yet to be answered. 

Or how about the Justice Dept just last week deciding any postings of negative opinions about Muslims on line at sites like Face Book and Twitter - and probably anywhere else, including here - is now a 'civil rights violation'.



For background, keep in mind the Left has no problem trashing Christianity, Catholicism, or Judaism, and encourages others to do so.

[FightTheFuture]

Uh, no actually.  By my definition, and pretty much everyone else's, Ridgeway was a serial killer - key word, serial.  Lanza was a mass murderer - note the key word "mass".


Do you know of any cases of someone killing 26 people in ten minutes with a belt?

I'm merely pointing out the idiocy of your original premise; that a semi-automatic firearm qualifies as WMD. Whether from a  semi-automatic rifle or an electrical cord, or an SUV, people's lives are always at risk. Most rational people understand that living in a free society comes with inherent risks.  We - or most of us - accept those risks and enjoy the freedoms which represent the other side of the coin, as it were.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in a quaint little Euro setting with cradle to grave nanny- state ass wiping.




Sent from my HTC MyTouch 4G slide...please excuse any typos

[PB the Deplorable]

... The point is, if a crazy person wants to kill, he will kill...

And no one is allowed to question the violence from video games, TV, or the movies. 

Or point out that nearly all gun crime emanates from our inner cities - which have been run as one party states under Leftist policies for several generations now.  Which should give us pause when those very same politicians are trying to pass new gun laws that apply to the rest of us.

[onan]

Arguing that other methods of killing makes deaths by guns less of a concern is irrational. Suggesting several gun owners fire weapons in defense in a crowded theater is wicked stupid. Hell I was in the military over 40 years ago and I still know you don't fire a weapon with non combatants in the line of fire.



In a crowded theater, 3 to 5 people will have an intellectual disability, 7 to 10 people will have an active addiction to either alcohol, opiates, or stimulants. One person will be medicated for a seizure disorder. Another 2 to 3 people will have a cognitive impairment.


There is no honest way to disregard gun deaths. They happen, either you are ok with that fact or you are not. If one is ok with that fact, they should be prepared for a large number of people who aren't. Whether they are well intentioned fools or better people than us, is beside the point.