Guns

[Sardondi]

Back to the original question of the thread, the other night I watched that deeply philosophical work, Tremors. I found it instructive that the "survivalist gun nuts", played by Reba McEntire and Marty McFly's Dad in the tv series Family Ties, who were predictably (if most unconvincingly) portrayed as being viewed as Other, silly and alarmist by the members of the small desert community, including the independent-minded cowboy protagonists, turned out to be the sine qua non of victory, whose gunpowder provided the means by which the remaining subterranean threats were ultimately overcome in various ways by the little village. Yes, Tremors I find accurately reflects and projects what the experience will be if things ever do get bad, and Reba! and Alex Keaton's dad must use their elephant gun, for which they never could even suggest a use until the rise of the Annelids, and rescue their unarmed (and thus unprepared and defenseless) neighbors when a bunch of gargantuan earthleeches try to destroy one of our small desert communities. Like Pahrump, NV. *taps pipe*

Yes, Tremors is a work not only of philosophical genius, but a masterpiece of suspense, containing performances worthy of Olivier or Brando, and boasting directorial skill seldom seen outside of works by Hitchcock, Kramer or Kubrick. Genius - sheer genius.

[Juan]

Two victims of gun violence, along with an undetermined number of accomplices, broke into a Jacksonville home two nights ago, brandished a shotgun, and ordered the inhabitants of the home to the floor.  A young man who lived in the home pulled out his 9mm and emptied the magazine.  One of the victims of gun violence died at the scene.  A second victim was found dumped in a parking lot a few blocks away.  Police are searching for the remaining accomplices. 

[Sardondi]

Two victims of gun violence, along with an undetermined number of accomplices, broke into a Jacksonville home two nights ago, brandished a shotgun, and ordered the inhabitants of the home to the floor.  A young man who lived in the home pulled out his 9mm and emptied the magazine.  One of the victims of gun violence died at the scene.  A second victim was found dumped in a parking lot a few blocks away.  Police are searching for the remaining accomplices.

Heh. Mayor Bloomie's little trick of "gun victims" is one of the reasons I almost never even bother to read stories about "statistics" which "prove" "support" for gun control initiatives, like the much bruited but massively unreliable "90%" figure supposedly in support of the most recent attempt at a gun control bill. They're almost always unreliable stories and analyses, sometimes from intentional thumb-on-the-scales, sometimes from media confusion about statistics.

[onan]

This is how it should go:


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/24/19106402-man-shot-attempting-to-rob-group-waiting-to-buy-lebron-james-sneakers?lite&lite=obinsite




This is how it shouldn't go:


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/23/19104579-5-year-old-girl-left-home-fatally-shoots-self-in-head-cops-say?lite

[Sardondi]

(This is a quote from the Compendium, to which I a response would go better here.)
Quote from: popple on Today at 12:37:06 AM

  Quote from: popple on Today at 12:37:06 AM
   ....I don't know if Jorch talked about it or if Alex Jones has, but during the flood in Calgary police were taking guns out of peoples houses. 



During recent flooding the smart boys at RCMP found a new way to accomplish a massive seizure of private, legally owned firearms. First an evacuation was ordered due to flooding. (Does anyone know if this was mandatory? Was there was no option?) The RCMP then used the pretext of "looking after people's property" to enter all evacuated homes. They said they were just taking care of the citizens, looking for pets which those obviously mentally retarded Albertans overlooked when they left. Because there wasn't any real work for the Mounties with the flooding and all. "So we had to keep the lads busy, so lets break and enter every dwelling in the flood area? That'll keep 'em busy! And we'll say, that, uh, we don't want returning homeowners to run into any bad, not-so-good danger. Yeah, that's the ticket!"

And, oh my goodness!, when they were looking for Great Danes and St. Bernards in closets and under beds, and in the nightstand drawers, they just happened, just happened, mind you, to come across "unsafe guns". Apparently there is no actual right to firearms in Canada: only those firearms which are locked up and useless and approved by the RCMP may be possessed, is that correct? Because the RCMP stumbled across these firearms and said they seized them so that homeowners would be "safe" when returning home. It's true: if you leave a firearm unlocked and free to roam around a house without feeding it a few days, it just might attack when you come back home. So I can see where it's very important to the safety of the homeowner to seize their firearms. which might have jumped up and hurt homeowners when they returned.

The Mounties got a little embarrassed by the bareassed chicanery of their cunning plan, and they've been tinkering with the "reasons" they felt like the safety of Alberta depended on them breaking and entering. (I don't know about Canadian law, but in America, absent an immediate obvious, real danger to life and limb, the police can't just enter someone's home, even if they say they're "not looking for evidence of a crime" - which actually gives them even less reason to break and enter). The residents were understandably fit to be tied. http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1138663-gun-owners-angered-by-rcmp-s-seizure-of-weapons-from-flooded-homes

Now the Mounties say, no hard feelings, they'll give the firearms back and won't even charge the people with keeping "unsafe firearms". Aren't they simply princes? Oh - but the owners can't just come get their firearms: they'll have to prove they can immediately put the firearms in chastity belts and in a Fortress of Can't-get-i-tude." http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/30/high-river-guns-seized-returned-rcmp_n_3526334.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&just_reloaded=1 Gunowners smell another pretext designed to lessen the pressure without actually letting people get their guns back quickly.

The Canadian Prime Minister's Office was outraged by the RCMP's gun-grabbing scheme, making the quite appropriate point that, "the Mounties should focus on more important tasks such as protecting lives and private property." Well, no shit, Dudley Do-Right. And of course the Mounties are panty-twisted that they got called down by the PM.

I'm kind of surprised at this in Alberta, which I kind of always took as an extension of Montana and Idaho, which are very big on maximum individual freedom and personal responsibility. I thought Alberta had this cowboy attitude as well. Now, I know Canada has quite restrictive firearms laws, and all firearms must be registered there. But this is just outrageous, since it's such a transparently false pretext. (This is an excellent example of how government uses gun registration information: they knew just where to go. But who else suspects that maybe the Mounties entered all homes to check on how honest people were about guns, eh? ) But it seems the RCMP in Alberta doesn't have that cowboy principle. Those boys would be right at home in Manhattan with Mayor Bloomberg. And Bloomberg, btw, I guarantee will use something like this in the near future to seize firearms. But he'll only do it in nice, polite, law-abiding, middle-class, primarily white neighborhoods - not in those areas where residents might shoot instead of submit to a lawless seizure.

[PB the Deplorable]

... During recent flooding the smart boys at RCMP found a new way to accomplish a massive seizure of private, legally owned firearms...

Remember when the police were on the side of honest citizens?  It's been awhile now, and we get further from that ideal every day.

Notice how every action by a government agent takes us towards Tyranny and never towards Liberty.  Unless there is an uproar.  Just another reason for significant reduction in the size of government at all levels.

[Sardondi]

Remember when the police were on the side of honest citizens?  It's been awhile now, and we get further from that ideal every day.

Notice how every action by a government agent takes us towards Tyranny and never towards Liberty.  Unless there is an uproar.  Just another reason for significant reduction in the size of government at all levels.

This is very troubling to me. Along with how we've federalized our local police forces, we've federalized most crime. Until the 80's-90's federal jurisdiction in most crimes was extremely limited. Now for almost every common law crime which is the traditional bailiwick of the local police, there is a federal mirror statute making the same activity illegal in federal court. Today almost all sizable drug crimes are prosecuted by the federal government because of draconian jail terms, very limited parole and "good time", and even more draconian forfeiture statutes/ States and local police bring their drug cases federally because they want money from forfeitures.

But we've also militarized almost every police department. Is there a podunk PD in America that doesn't have a bunch of actual "assault weapons"? Every arrest with even the slightest possibility of resistance gets the Full Monty raid, with body armor, flash bangs and, most unfortunately, the possibility that among the team is one or more adolescent just dying to light it up. You know, you train and train and train, and you want to have an opportunity to use that training. There's simply no excuse for most of the SWAT-team type of arrest warrants being run today in America. Dogs are being unnecessarily killed. Older and disabled residents are being painfully "hooked up" and put on the ground, sometimes for a couple of hours. There is a "jock" attitude which has mushroomed among police.

Finally, there is a growing "us vs. them" attitude among police. Less and less police have a feeling of solidarity with the community they are a part of, and more and more a siege mentality. Of being a priestly class, set apart, with a higher calling (which also brings special status as well of course). You get that repugnant "sheepdog" arrogance. You've seen this? For years there have been various mailings about how America is a nation of either sheep or wolves. Most people are dumbass, cowardly, weakling "sheep", who are the target of the wolves. The only thing saving these incompetents who make up America are the courageous "sheepdogs" who sacrifice their lives to protect the sheep, of whom they are almost contemptuous. The sheepdogs are those "hard men" Orwell wrote about.

Look, I've spent my life among cops, and love them. But when they start thinking of themselves in the terms of these "sheepdog" fantasies, and when they think they are a separate class in our society, that is a bad sign. That kind of arrogance, narcissism and alienation is frightening. And I've certainly seen more of it since the 70's. Humility among police is just gone. And that is dangerous. Because when some apparatchik sends down the order to have the Imperial Police fire on demonstrators who are protesting, say, the politicization of the IRS, you'd expect the police to remember that they are killing their friends and neighbors. But if they have this priestly class, sheepdog attitude, who knows what they might do. When the police are more dangerous to their own neighbors than they are the government, you've got a tyranny.

[PB the Deplorable]

This is very troubling to me. Along with how we've federalized our local police forces, we've federalized most crime. Until the 80's-90's federal jurisdiction in most crimes was extremely limited. Now for almost every common law crime which is the traditional bailiwick of the local police, there is a federal mirror statute making the same activity illegal in federal court. Today almost all sizable drug crimes are prosecuted by the federal government because of draconian jail terms, very limited parole and "good time", and even more draconian forfeiture statutes/ States and local police bring their drug cases federally because they want money from forfeitures.

But we've also militarized almost every police department. Is there a podunk PD in America that doesn't have a bunch of actual "assault weapons"?...

Finally, there is a growing "us vs. them" attitude among police. Less and less police have a feeling of solidarity with the community they are a part of, and more and more a siege mentality. Of being a priestly class, set apart, with a higher calling (which also brings special status as well of course)...

My dad was a cop.  Based on some recent experiences - nothing serious, but any interaction with these jerks is quite telling these days - I'm not on their side anymore.  I would no longer take a cops word for it over a criminals if I were on a jury - probably just the opposite.  I wouldn't risk my well being to help a cop.  When the police lose someone like me, they have to be way past a certain line.

When I lived in China for awhile, the troops that police the cities and towns are reassigned far away from where they are originally from.  They have no ties to the people where they patrol.  They have no problem firing on crowds.  Today's big city police don't live in the cities they work in - they live in suburbia.  The cops that work for suburban forces also often live elsewhere.  They have no problem shooting people that 'might' have a gun, or people's pets, or bullying the people they come in contact with.  Here in Oakland and San Francisco there seem to be plenty of individual cops that are charged with brutality over and over again and skate each time.  Mostly by regular normal citizens that did nothing wrong.  This has gotten so common so fast that it can only get worse at the same pace.


Just last week I read that FEMA and their Russian counterpart have a new agreement to 'exchange experts in rescue operations'.  That ought to chill anyone.  What kind of diseased mind in the Administration would think "yes, lets have an exchange plan with the Russians for each others 'emergency rescue' agents". 

Who would think to have that agreement - specifically with the faraway Russians - and why?  Hint:  think Russian troops operating on US soil at the request of Obama.

http://en.mchs.ru/news/item/434203/

[West of the Rockies]

I've watched a couple of episodes of Adam 12 on Netflix recently...  Yeah, it's got that Jack Webb over-the-top production moralizing, but it is very curious to see how different Reed and Malloy interacted with citizens back in 1968 (when the program began).  Not every contact ended with a bust (even though by today's protocol, they surely would).  Instead, counseling and a little patience were often the order of the day. 

I know it was just a TV show, but it serves as an intriguing measuring stick. 

[onan]

[b_dubb]

i'm scared of old ladies who are armed to the teeth and displaying early signs of dementia.  eek

[onan]

i'm scared of old ladies who are armed to the teeth and displaying early signs of dementia.  eek

Dementia only hits about 3.4% of adults in their 70's with close to 70 million in that age range your odds are lower than bumping into a murderer in a mall. Now add the conceal carry permit to the mix and your odds are pretty low (only about 6-7 million ccw permits in the US)... but to be on the safe side always be nice to old people.

[The Neverender]

I was down in Texas visiting some friends, and after a day on the range shoot the most ridiculously extensive private collection of firearms, we went out to dinner with his grandparents. As we were getting ready to head to the restaurant, my friend was putting the last of the handguns in the gun safe, when he picked up a .50 cal handgun and said "Grandpa what would you do if i puled this on you?" Grandpa opened the flap of his jacket and partially pulled out what looked like a .44 and said "That's why I have this." And little old Grandma pulled a little .38 out of her pocketbook and said "And I've got him covered." Nicest folks you'll ever meet, and they were packing all during dinner at the restaurant.     

[Sardondi]

...Grandpa opened the flap of his jacket and partially pulled out what looked like a .44 and said "That's why I have this." And little old Grandma pulled a little .38 out of her pocketbook and said "And I've got him covered." Nicest folks you'll ever meet, and they were packing all during dinner at the restaurant.

They remember Luby's, when a single armed person might have saved many from being shot and 23 killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

As in Aurora, Colorado; as in Newtown, Connecticut; as at Virginia Tech...

[onan]

They remember Luby's, when a single armed person might have saved many from being shot and 23 killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

As in Aurora, Colorado; as in Newtown, Connecticut; as at Virginia Tech...

These stories are always troubling to me. I am all for ccw for the purpose of fending off an attacker. But when it gets into something like Luby's... most people with conceal carry have no training. With people running and dodging, plus a truck in the restaurant... the bad guy is not the most likely to be shot. I have yet to see a training that places the shooter in extreme chaos. I am sure some exist... more than likely for professional law enforcement.


And as much as I would like to be the one to put a killer down; I am quite aware of how easy it is to shoot the wrong guy. When in an emergent situation the body goes into a fight or flight condition, epinephrine is released and fine motor skill for the next 30 to 45 minutes is out the window. tunnel vision sets in, hearing is rendered almost useless and ones breathing increases substantially which affects eye and hand coordination. The chance of an accurate shot under those conditions is almost impossible. Add age to that and the problems are increased.


It is a tough call. better to be armed but still real dangerous.

[Sardondi]

These stories are always troubling to me. I am all for ccw for the purpose of fending off an attacker. But when it gets into something like Luby's... most people with conceal carry have no training. With people running and dodging, plus a truck in the restaurant... the bad guy is not the most likely to be shot. I have yet to see a training that places the shooter in extreme chaos. I am sure some exist... more than likely for professional law enforcement.


And as much as I would like to be the one to put a killer down; I am quite aware of how easy it is to shoot the wrong guy. When in an emergent situation the body goes into a fight or flight condition, epinephrine is released and fine motor skill for the next 30 to 45 minutes is out the window. tunnel vision sets in, hearing is rendered almost useless and ones breathing increases substantially which affects eye and hand coordination. The chance of an accurate shot under those conditions is almost impossible. Add age to that and the problems are increased.

It is a tough call. better to be armed but still real dangerous.

Not invalid concerns. But as against complete impotence, with victims cowering, awaiting their turn of execution, I come down on the side of intervention by armed citizens and will run the risk of mistake. Besides, in the cold calculus or risk accounting, one life taken by tragic mistake is far outweighed by a dozen saved innocent lives. 

[NowhereInTime]

Not invalid concerns. But as against complete impotence, with victims cowering, awaiting their turn of execution, I come down on the side of intervention by armed citizens and will run the risk of mistake. Besides, in the cold calculus or risk accounting, one life taken by tragic mistake is far outweighed by a dozen saved innocent lives.

Assuming any of you could get the drop on a shooter like Adam Lanza.  Do any of you really believe that Dawn Hochsprung could've dropped him at thirty paces with a glock?  This kid was obsessed, had extensive range time (with his mother) and was intimately aware of his weapons.  And do you really want to be the oaf that blows a kid (or three) away in an attempt to disarm a shooter?  How many mistaken lives make the calculus worth it? 4 dead to save 5?

[onan]

Assuming any of you could get the drop on a shooter like Adam Lanza.  Do any of you really believe that Dawn Hochsprung could've dropped him at thirty paces with a glock?  This kid was obsessed, had extensive range time (with his mother) and was intimately aware of his weapons.  And do you really want to be the oaf that blows a kid (or three) away in an attempt to disarm a shooter?  How many mistaken lives make the calculus worth it? 4 dead to save 5?

Not that I don't see the dilemma, but do you see no better outcome than what occurred?


Although I am not a proponent of arming school staff, if they had been, would you consider, that lanza might have made a different choice?


There is no metric that will make everyone comfortable; so if that is your goal, you may want to hang it up.


Whatever your position, guns aren't going away. And in my opinion that is the way it should be. It isn't my fault a whack job killed anywhere.


But you are right, I have dealt with people that are living with the anguish of shooting and killing another. And the emotional costs are significant. But not as significant the loss of a loved one.

[Yorkshire pud]

Anyone switched on, prepared, motivated; a planner, will always be in a stronger position. It's why Special forces train over and over and over again with live rounds. In staged hostage situations. In CQB situations. There isn't a cat in hells chance an armed person who isn't prepared for the soon to begin firefight (from the gunman) would get past first base from cold; and likely as not get shot before they took aim. If you were the gunman, who would you target? The potential opposition, or the benign hostages? It's why hostage training (at least in this country at banks etc) emphasise playing it passive.. Money can be replaced, playing Rambo gets people hurt.

[NowhereInTime]

Not that I don't see the dilemma, but do you see no better outcome than what occurred?


Although I am not a proponent of arming school staff, if they had been, would you consider, that lanza might have made a different choice?


There is no metric that will make everyone comfortable; so if that is your goal, you may want to hang it up.


Whatever your position, guns aren't going away. And in my opinion that is the way it should be. It isn't my fault a whack job killed anywhere.


But you are right, I have dealt with people that are living with the anguish of shooting and killing another. And the emotional costs are significant. But not as significant the loss of a loved one.

Frankly, I don't see a better outcome. The teachers and aides did a great job corralling as many kids to safety as possible.  The school could've been better served by protective glass doors with buzz-in only entrance, but I doubt Lanza would've been deterred. The police were on site within three minutes of the 911 call - from Route 25 to Dickinson means they flew across town. 
It may not be your fault a "whackjob" killed anyone but when 90% of the country accepts and supports background checks that Congress failed to pass, aren't we really just saying "Fuck You" to the people who've been victimized?  Sorry, shoulda hadda AR15?  Is that the best we can do? Couldn't we have prevented Lanza and James Holmes from obtaining weapons or having access to weapons that resulted in tragedy?  I think so.

[onan]

Frankly, I don't see a better outcome. The teachers and aides did a great job corralling as many kids to safety as possible.  The school could've been better served by protective glass doors with buzz-in only entrance, but I doubt Lanza would've been deterred. The police were on site within three minutes of the 911 call - from Route 25 to Dickinson means they flew across town. 
It may not be your fault a "whackjob" killed anyone but when 90% of the country accepts and supports background checks that Congress failed to pass, aren't we really just saying "Fuck You" to the people who've been victimized?  Sorry, shoulda hadda AR15?  Is that the best we can do? Couldn't we have prevented Lanza and James Holmes from obtaining weapons or having access to weapons that resulted in tragedy?  I think so.

Well, that wasn't your post's concern. You made the point the principal wouldn't have gotten the drop on Lanza, I agree.


Now you are adding background checks (which I am for). But lanza didn't own the guns. So a background check on family members too? What about a neighbor that was arrested for a BnE 2 doors down? Should his background be part of mine?


I don't even know how to address the fuck you statement.


As far as the best we can do... not even close. But it is probably the most pragmatic thing we can/will do... and those two will never meet.


If you want to continue with the plea for emotions, I am kinda there with you. It is a tragedy. But gun owners are not the cause of the tragedy.

[Yorkshire pud]

And the only comment is complaining at the journo's grammar! (Since corrected)

http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext?nxd_id=681922


I guess it's one more who won't have his gun peeled from his cold dead fingers when he's older...Incredible..And some think everyone has a right to bear arms? Yeah?  Some don't have a right to be in charge of anything more dangerous than a small ball of cotton wool out of their reach.   

[NowhereInTime]

Well, that wasn't your post's concern. You made the point the principal wouldn't have gotten the drop on Lanza, I agree.


Now you are adding background checks (which I am for). But lanza didn't own the guns. So a background check on family members too? What about a neighbor that was arrested for a BnE 2 doors down? Should his background be part of mine?


I don't even know how to address the fuck you statement.


As far as the best we can do... not even close. But it is probably the most pragmatic thing we can/will do... and those two will never meet.


If you want to continue with the plea for emotions, I am kinda there with you. It is a tragedy. But gun owners are not the cause of the tragedy.

I believe the background checks would've red-flagged Nancy Lanza as the mother of a special needs child that, at the very least, should've required to have a gun vault in the home.  I don't know why we always have to reach for the Nth degree exaggeration; the guy two doors down with the breaking and entering is a threat that may require a legitimate gun purchase.  Again, the weapon is supervised or vaulted.  Am I asking for too much?  I get frustrated because irrational people start screaming about their rights when a background check would never deny a law-abiding citizen the rights to own weapons.  I get suspicious when such checks are called "invasions of privacy"; you are more scrutinized getting a car loan.

[onan]

I believe the background checks would've red-flagged Nancy Lanza as the mother of a special needs child that, at the very least, should've required to have a gun vault in the home.  I don't know why we always have to reach for the Nth degree exaggeration; the guy two doors down with the breaking and entering is a threat that may require a legitimate gun purchase.  Again, the weapon is supervised or vaulted.  Am I asking for too much?  I get frustrated because irrational people start screaming about their rights when a background check would never deny a law-abiding citizen the rights to own weapons.  I get suspicious when such checks are called "invasions of privacy"; you are more scrutinized getting a car loan.

it's called sarcasm... Yeah maybe a background check of mom, would have stopped lanza. I doubt it. I have gun safes. I don't have children in my home. A gun safe is to stop thieves. Go back and read my posts rather than foam about how right you are. I believe any gun used in a crime should hold the owner complicit. That doesn't apply to Nancy, since she is already dead.

In NC a background check is for the person that is applying for the permit. It doesn't extend to family members and I don't believe it should. I am pretty sure that is the norm

But no legislation is going to stop crazy. There are too many unforeseen potentials to counter.

You can be angry all day. Gun rights are our most expensive right... it costs lives. I do my best to make sure my firearms are always secure. But I am not even starting to consider I shouldn't have them.

[onan]

Let me tone this down a bit. Background checks seem like a very good idea to me. But pragmatically, how does one check for mental illness? I can assess one in crisis and appropriately triage them for the proper treatment. But if a person presents without crisis how does one tell if they might become unstable? I honestly don't know if it is possible in under 24 hours of observation and that is just impractical as hell. Can we have other community members vouch? That just opens up more problems.

A background check can look for previous behaviors and really not much else. So someone was suicidal 5 years ago... are they not eligible now?

We don't have enough psychiatric professionals now. Cutting into that time for gun ownership assessments... I am not a fan.

[West of the Rockies]

You make a great point, Onan, in that there is no perfect solution to anything really.   People will always find a way to hurt themselves or others.  I recall a local case where a young man was hiking through a very rocky public park where I live.  He was carrying (for reasons unknown) an armed speargun.  He dropped the gun; it discharged and sent a bolt right up his nostril.  He was staggeringly lucky not to lose an eye or have the bolt enter his tiny little brain.

Nonetheless, he sued the city and the manufacturer of the speargun and anyone else he could think of.  (I don't know what the outcome was.)  Clearly, his stupidity was the biggest factor in the incident.  I mean, who, really, thinks it wise to walk around a hardpan landscape with a loaded speargun.  It's a bit like thinking you should be able to blowdry your hair with a paint-stripping heat gun -- that's not the purpose, and if you're too stupid to figure it out, you probably ought to be suing your own parents for failing to educate you in the basics of life.

No solution will cover all of the possibilities when a mentally-ill person decides to shoot a bunch of random strangers.  Not background checks, not armed school cooks and custodians, nothing....

[onan]

You make a great point, Onan, in that there is no perfect solution to anything really.   People will always find a way to hurt themselves or others.  I recall a local case where a young man was hiking through a very rocky public park where I live.  He was carrying (for reasons unknown) an armed speargun.  He dropped the gun; it discharged and sent a bolt right up his nostril.  He was staggeringly lucky not to lose an eye or have the bolt enter his tiny little brain.

Nonetheless, he sued the city and the manufacturer of the speargun and anyone else he could think of.  (I don't know what the outcome was.)  Clearly, his stupidity was the biggest factor in the incident.  I mean, who, really, thinks it wise to walk around a hardpan landscape with a loaded speargun.  It's a bit like thinking you should be able to blowdry your hair with a paint-stripping heat gun -- that's not the purpose, and if you're too stupid to figure it out, you probably ought to be suing your own parents for failing to educate you in the basics of life.

No solution will cover all of the possibilities when a mentally-ill person decides to shoot a bunch of random strangers.  Not background checks, not armed school cooks and custodians, nothing....

Thanks, there are so many ways to be stupid... and I am living proof.

To the hiker and the spear gun... or the guy that strapped a rocket on the roof of his car... I am not certain we should show sympathy.

What happened in Connecticut was horrible. What happened in Colorado (pick your incident) was horrible. In our society (the US) firearms are not only allowed they are by and large acceptable possessions. They have an historical perspective and a patriotic aspect as well. Firearms also attract some whacknuts. Some that have little propriety for proper use. There aren't any simple answers, frankly there may not be any answer at all.

[Jackpine Savage]

Don't get uncomfortable over your gun ownership onan. It's obvious you are responsible there's no reason for you to get rattled. It's important that people on all ranges of the political spectrum exercise their second amendment rights. This means reasonable debate over the issue can take place. When you have a situation where one side is completely pro, the other against, we end up with a situation like the abortion debate, no room for reason. What if only one side of the political spectrum felt the first amendment was valid?

[onan]

Don't get uncomfortable over your gun ownership onan. It's obvious you are responsible there's no reason for you to get rattled. It's important that people on all ranges of the political spectrum exercise their second amendment rights. This means reasonable debate over the issue can take place. When you have a situation where one side is completely pro, the other against, we end up with a situation like the abortion debate, no room for reason. What if only one side of the political spectrum felt the first amendment was valid?

I'm not uncomfortable... really I am not. If one wants to debate the validity of the second amendment I am all for it. It really is a very poorly written piece of legislation. And the argument of public safety is a very valid argument. If those that want to limit or completely remove firearms from the public used those arguments, I would have difficulty not supporting them.

[Jackpine Savage]

Whatever, the 2nd is beautifully written. "Shall not be infringed". Not a whole lot of wiggle room I know. Depending on your point of view that is a problem, or a key feature.