Guns

[Yorkshire pud]

Abosolutely! I think there should be strict background checks for anyone desirous of installing a deadly swimming pool. The proper government agency would have to review all the paperwork and issue a license. Naturally, any person that has a notion to swim in the pool will have to prove they are proficient swimmers - under threat of heavy fines and potential jail time.

Yeah, because the hard of thinking can't differentiate the use of a swimming pool and the use of a firearm. Because everyone who is shot, is shot because they were shot in the belief it wasn't going to hurt let alone kill them. Whereas swimming or learning to do so doesn't have a downside. I'm sure even you can work out the difference; perhaps.


You still didn't address this though...

...and how many children are saved each day because they can swim? How many children die each day because of a firearm? Your argument is facile. Let's broaden it away from the USA shall we? Many many more children die because of firearms than are saved because of them.

Funny that.

[NowhereInTime]

Let me guess - handing a big wad of cash over to the government as a fine would have been appropriate?

No, handing over 8 to 10 years of his life for endangering a child and negligent homicide would've been the appropriate response. Instead he was "unleashed" to allow to continue building his fortune.  Then the feds caught up to him and his father.  The father took a 5 year stint in club fed for $15 million in evasion while the negligent, tax dodging son today is a multi millionaire.  At least we kept government out of his way...

[NowhereInTime]

Abosolutely! I think there should be strict background checks for anyone desirous of installing a deadly swimming pool. The proper government agency would have to review all the paperwork and issue a license. Naturally, any person that has a notion to swim in the pool will have to prove they are proficient swimmers - under threat of heavy fines and potential jail time.

Dripping cynicism aside, isn't an ounce of prevention (many communities offer free or low cost CPR & swim lessons) worth a pound of cure?  Is a little extra work and responsibility worth saving lives?  What about reducing the number of incident responses for police, fire and EMT's?  (Now, that's truly a burden.)

[onan]

I am heartless at times.


Own a firearm that is connected in any way to a death, excluding self defense, and go to jail and lose all rights for ever owning a firearm again.


Own a firearm that, after selling, is subsequently used in any crime and all owners of that firearm make complete restitution.


Own a pool and have an accidental death, lose that pool and rights to ever have a pool again.

[Zoo]

So you'd have no problem with Joe public having weapons grade uranium either? After all the government has it..

Not at all I don't by into the fear MSM and your Government just a fun fact more kids died last year from peanuts allergies than guns; and how many children have been saved because of guns? How many people have been saved because of guns? How many children didn't die because of guns? Thats right nobody knows because we don't keep those stats
!!1

[PB the Deplorable]

No, handing over 8 to 10 years of his life for endangering a child and negligent homicide would've been the appropriate response. Instead he was "unleashed" to allow to continue building his fortune.  Then the feds caught up to him and his father.  The father took a 5 year stint in club fed for $15 million in evasion while the negligent, tax dodging son today is a multi millionaire.  At least we kept government out of his way...

Everyone should pay their taxes.  Anyone can do well in life - at least in the US - if they work at it, save some money, and invest wisely (unless they have some physical or mental disorder that precludes that from happening). 

Not sure what any of that has to do with a kid drowning in a pool.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Let's broaden it away from the USA shall we? Many many more children die because of firearms than are saved because of them.

Away from the USA?  There have been many entire villages completely wiped out - including kids - in places like Uganda and neighboring countries, northern Nigeria, Sulawesi and some of the other islands in Indonesia, in majority Muslim countries like Pakistan, on and on.  Recent news.   Sometimes it seems like it's every day.  Before that it was Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Somalia, Afghanistan, India, Sudan, Tigre, Eritrea, Rwanda - too many to list.  Many of them (most?, nearly all?) Christian enclaves destroyed and burned by your friends the Muslims.

The people that are murdered first when the government dissolves in places like Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, are villages full of non-Muslim kids.

Surely you can tell us how many 'casualties' have been children, and explain why these people not having sufficient weapons to defend themselves was for the greater good?

[RealCool Daddio]

Away from the USA?  There have been many entire villages completely wiped out - including kids - in places like Uganda and neighboring countries, northern Nigeria, Sulawesi and some of the other islands in Indonesia, in majority Muslim countries like Pakistan, on and on.  Recent news.   Sometimes it seems like it's every day.  Before that it was Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Somalia, Afghanistan, India, Sudan, Tigre, Eritrea, Rwanda - too many to list.  Many of them (most?, nearly all?) Christian enclaves destroyed and burned by your friends the Muslims.

The people that are murdered first when the government dissolves in places like Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, are villages full of non-Muslim kids.

Surely you can tell us how many 'casualties' have been children, and explain why these people not having sufficient weapons to defend themselves was for the greater good?

So your point is people need guns so they can kill Muslims.  Nice.  Any other groups on your list?  Blacks?  Gays?  Armenians?  Portland hipsters?  All non- Christians, maybe?

[Yorkshire pud]

Away from the USA?  There have been many entire villages completely wiped out - including kids - in places like Uganda and neighboring countries, northern Nigeria, Sulawesi and some of the other islands in Indonesia, in majority Muslim countries like Pakistan, on and on.  Recent news.   Sometimes it seems like it's every day.  Before that it was Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Somalia, Afghanistan, India, Sudan, Tigre, Eritrea, Rwanda - too many to list.  Many of them (most?, nearly all?) Christian enclaves destroyed and burned by your friends the Muslims.

Got news for you PB; and I know it stinks to have the facts thrown back at you, but of all the places you've mentioned, most of the casualties have been muslims. But then you'd know all about factions, and how a very uneasy peace can sometimes fail with seemingly allied populations.

The people that are murdered first when the government dissolves in places like Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, are villages full of non-Muslim kids.

Surely you can tell us how many 'casualties' have been children, and explain why these people not having sufficient weapons to defend themselves was for the greater good?

So you go along with your government planning on supplying weapons to the Assad opposition in Syria? Because so far, there are only 93 000 killed., 6500 of those children (who I'm pretty sure didn't die in swimming pool accidents).. You see, guns don't kill people. And they'd just as soon have been killed by pens, tennis balls, and drunk drivers. In my  opinion, Syria is just another little chess board for Russia and the West to try out the latest stuff to destroy innocent civilians.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22910005

[NowhereInTime]

Everyone should pay their taxes.  Anyone can do well in life - at least in the US - if they work at it, save some money, and invest wisely (unless they have some physical or mental disorder that precludes that from happening). 

Not sure what any of that has to do with a kid drowning in a pool.

And this is my problem with conservatives.  I have described a child negligent, tax dodging millionaire who's only virtue is that he is wealthy, and I get the sanctimonious bolier plate about "working hard, saving, and investing..."  when the truth is the family fortune exploded while they were inflating vendor invoices and claiming false costs to the gov't.  They got rich by cheating and, once wealthy, were treated with a different set of rules regarding the drowning death of their child at a family party.  Somehow in Conservative America this is all good.  So why shouldn't I defraud and deceive my fellow citizens? Why shouldn't I use my wealth to evade my responsibilities?  I'm sorry, I cannot accept socio-economic Darwinism as a model of citizenship.  This country was founded to be better than that.

[PB the Deplorable]

So your point is people need guns so they can kill Muslims.  Nice.  Any other groups on your list?  Blacks?  Gays?  Armenians?  Portland hipsters?  All non- Christians, maybe?

If they are coming to rape, loot, and burn someone else's village, hell yes

[PB the Deplorable]

Got news for you PB; and I know it stinks to have the facts thrown back at you, but of all the places you've mentioned, most of the casualties have been muslims...

In response to a post of yours, I was merely pointing out situations in the world where children would likely NOT have been killed had there been sufficient weaponry.

Most of the Muslims killed in most of those areas were killed by other Muslims.  There are some instances of Christian villagers retaliating against Muslim villages in places like Indonesia and Nigeria, and Hindus against Muslims in India, but those are rare in comparison.

... So you go along with your government planning on supplying weapons to the Assad opposition in Syria?...

Actually, no.

[PB the Deplorable]

And this is my problem with conservatives.  I have described a child negligent, tax dodging millionaire who's only virtue is that he is wealthy, and I get the sanctimonious bolier plate about "working hard, saving, and investing..."  when the truth is the family fortune exploded while they were inflating vendor invoices and claiming false costs to the gov't.  They got rich by cheating and, once wealthy, were treated with a different set of rules regarding the drowning death of their child at a family party.  Somehow in Conservative America this is all good.  So why shouldn't I defraud and deceive my fellow citizens? Why shouldn't I use my wealth to evade my responsibilities?  I'm sorry, I cannot accept socio-economic Darwinism as a model of citizenship.  This country was founded to be better than that.

But were they really treated differently due to wealth?  Are parents of other drowned kids thrown in jail for the 8-10 years you suggest?  Do we really want to send already grieving parents off to prison? 

Maybe if we had more details about the extent of negligence vs accident instead of all the information about their finances... and by the way in no way do I condone tax evasion or ripping off the government or other customers.

[Ruteger]

HUSSEIN Obama has decided to give firearms to the Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria, but at the same time conspires with the Democrats in Congress to confiscate firearms from law-abiding Americans? 

[PB the Deplorable]

HUSSEIN Obama has decided to give firearms to the Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria, but at the same time conspires with the Democrats in Congress to confiscate firearms from law-abiding Americans? 

Correct.  Obama has been very clear all along about who his friends are and who his enemies are.

[RealCool Daddio]

Most of the Muslims killed in most of those areas were killed by other Muslims.  There are some instances of Christian villagers retaliating against Muslim villages in places like Indonesia and Nigeria, and Hindus against Muslims in India, but those are rare in comparison.

Yep, the problem is clearly the darn Muslims.  Perhaps it would save a lot of time if they were just rounded up and put to death.  Perhaps you and Ruteger can get together and work on a final solution to this nasty Muslim problem. I believe his ancestors have some experience in this area.

[Sardondi]

Own a firearm that is connected in any way to a death, excluding self defense, and go to jail and lose all rights for ever owning a firearm again.

Own a firearm that, after selling, is subsequently used in any crime and all owners of that firearm make complete restitution.

Own a pool and have an accidental death, lose that pool and rights to ever have a pool again.

You mean, like we (don't) do with motor vehicles? Or even drugs? You suggest we upend 1000 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, and when it comes to this inanimate lump of steel and plastic, we just dispense with the concept of one's state of mind? We ignore our Constitution's requirement that in criminal matters one must be shown to have had criminal intent before he can be found guilty of a crime? We do away with the proof of any kind of intent at all? In civil matters we destroy the necessity of showing not only wantonness or recklessness, but even the sheerest negligence or oversight? The idea of individual responsibility for one's acts just disappears?

[Juan]

We ignore our Constitution's requirement that in criminal matters one must be shown to have had criminal intent before he can be found guilty of a crime?

Criminal intent?  How old fashioned.  How the hell can one have criminal intent when the violated statute refers to layer after layer of regulation for specifics of the offense, such that the Justice Department can't tell us how many federal crimes there are.  How can there be criminal intent - or criminal negligence - when no one knows a given thing is illegal?

[onan]

You mean, like we (don't) do with motor vehicles? Or even drugs? You suggest we upend 1000 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, and when it comes to this inanimate lump of steel and plastic, we just dispense with the concept of one's state of mind? We ignore our Constitution's requirement that in criminal matters one must be shown to have had criminal intent before he can be found guilty of a crime? We do away with the proof of any kind of intent at all? In civil matters we destroy the necessity of showing not only wantonness or recklessness, but even the sheerest negligence or oversight? The idea of individual responsibility for one's acts just disappears?

Yep, pretty much. A firearm has one purpose. Not being fully aware of that purpose and allowing that lump of steel to end anyone's life is no accident. It is reckless endangerment with callousness. In the military a soldier can be brought up on charges for pointing a weapon at another, can face court martial for their weapon discharging anywhere but on a firing range or battle ground. And woe unto the soldier that misplaces their weapon.


There is no foolish mistake leaving a firearm unattended... it is no different than leaving explosives in a school room. There is no excuse. When one owns a firearm there is no slight oversight. First lesson in firearm safety is any exchange of a firearm is to remove the bullets and check the chamber. The person receiving the weapon then rechecks. Leaving a firearm unattended breaks that check. There is no excuse and it is not an accident when a firearm discharges unexpectedly, because all firearms are assumed to be loaded.

[Eddie Coyle]

I believe his ancestors have some experience in this area.

But, breaking up could be hard to do. The Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti were alligned in previous efforts.

[Yorkshire pud]

You mean, like we (don't) do with motor vehicles? Or even drugs? You suggest we upend 1000 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, and when it comes to this inanimate lump of steel and plastic, we just dispense with the concept of one's state of mind? We ignore our Constitution's requirement that in criminal matters one must be shown to have had criminal intent before he can be found guilty of a crime?

Really? I thought you'd have to be found guilty of a crime, intended or not. To take the oft used drunk driver as an example; if the drunk staggering out of the bar climbs into his/her car and then goes on to kill someone, does this not make him/her guilty of killing someone whilst under the influence irrespective of whether they intended to a) drive when they staggered out b) kill someone.?


So if someone has a loaded weapon that is laying around or just in their pocket; and it is discharged either intentionally or not, and it kills someone, is there a modicum of responsibility at least? Would the prosecution not be pursuing a guilty verdict from the jury? And will the owner be pleading not guilty on the strength that they didn't intend for it to be used to kill someone? Bit of a dilemma for the jury isn't it?

[PB the Deplorable]

And this is my problem with conservatives.  I have described a child negligent, tax dodging millionaire who's only virtue is that he is wealthy, and I get the sanctimonious bolier plate about "working hard, saving, and investing..."  ..

That's weird.  It was you that took 4 posts to tell the story, each time adding details that had nothing to do with the kid drowning:  rich... tax dodging... inflating customer invoices...

I get that you hate the guy.  So why were you working for them?  If that kid hadn't drowned, I get the feeling you'd be somewhere posting about what a spoiled brat he is.  if you knew they were being so obviously negligent, why didn't you call Child Protective Services?

[PB the Deplorable]

Yep, the problem is clearly the darn Muslims.  Perhaps it would save a lot of time if they were just rounded up and put to death.  Perhaps you and Ruteger can get together and work on a final solution to this nasty Muslim problem. I believe his ancestors have some experience in this area.

I get that the Left embraces the Muslims.  They understand they have a common enemy - the rest of us.

It's odd watching the Left routinely smear Christians, Jews, and Catholics for at least the past 3 decades, then turn around and toady up to the Muslims - people that have no problem chopping off hands and heads, stoning people - especially girls and women - treat women and gays like animals - when they aren't killing them, and have been slaughtering their neighbors going on 1500 years now.

How the ideological descendants of Stalin, Castro, Hitler and Mao must admire that record.



Here's one for you - just this week here in San Francisco.  Now understand SF is a place where people get visibly angry if someone foolishly wishes them a 'Merry Christmas', and go ballistic if someone suggests setting up a Christmas tree or a Santa anywhere near a public park or building.  So this past week the Muslin cab drivers demanded a special separate washroom at SFO - city owned San Francisco Intl Airport - specifically to wash themselves and pray 5 times a day. 

Not a problem.  Not a single voice of opposition - the cabbies got their washroom/prayer room, Allah only knows how much that's going to cost to install.  And no doubt they'll be on to the next demand soon enough.  Now the thing about this is, the R's and Conservatives (and members of other religions) don't have a problem accommodating people - it's the angry hateful Left that's always 'protesting' or using sophistry to stop something other people want that they don't.  And on this - a wash and prayer room set up on public property - absolute silence.  Strange, no?

[onan]

using sophistry to stop something other people want that they don't. 

Ya know, PB, I have grown to respect your point of view. I have even started to admire your resiliency.


But I scratch my head at your inability to see both sides as jackasses. You want sophistry? how about the statement that a woman can't get pregnant if she is raped.


I am sure we can both with little expenditure of time and energy can come up with long lists of simplified/stupid statements/arguments that are not substantiated by any facts. But sincerely, I doubt you or I can abandon our biases to keep it completely honest.


But the left as much as you want to believe it is not anymore dishonest than the right. The game has been rigged for at least 40 years. And we are just the pawns that buy into this "your side is bad" mind set.

[Juan]

Really? I thought you'd have to be found guilty of a crime, intended or not. To take the oft used drunk driver as an example; if the drunk staggering out of the bar climbs into his/her car and then goes on to kill someone, does this not make him/her guilty of killing someone whilst under the influence irrespective of whether they intended to a) drive when they staggered out b) kill someone.? [/size]

That example depends on the statue of the individual jurisdiction, but criminal intent might not be required.  Criminal negligence is also a determinant, and getting drunk and driving would probably meet that standard.

The same with a gun.  Shooting someone accidentally might rise to criminal negligence, or it might not.  While accidents can have terrible consequences, there are still accidents.

[stevesh]

I'd be interested to know if astroguy has gleaned anything from this thread he started.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'd be interested to know if astroguy has gleaned anything from this thread he started.

Yes...the true definition of 'can of worms' 

[FightTheFuture]

To take the oft used drunk driver as an example; if the drunk staggering out of the bar climbs into his/her car and then goes on to kill someone, does this not make him/her guilty of killing someone whilst under the influence irrespective of whether they intended to a) drive when they staggered out b) kill someone.?

Long before one "kills someone" while driving under-the-influence, that person has already committed a serious crime by electing to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, much the same way a person would be guilty of a crime if he or she were discharging rounds from a weapon into the air and one just happened to come down and strike a person, causing their death. But just having a firearm concealed in your pocket is NOT necessarily a crime, and the accidental discharge of that firearm, resulting in the death of another person, is NOT necessarily a crime.

[onan]

Although I will concede there are several unintentional shootings.


Accidental is a myth.


Firearms are meant to discharge a round. That is common knowledge. Every hunter/gun safety course plainly states to never fire a round if unsure of where the bullet will travel. Every safety course plainly states to never fire a weapon if anyone is in the line of fire. Every safety course plainly states to never leave a weapon unattended. Hunter safety courses teach not to cross uneven or fenced land with a loaded weapon. So I am at a loss as to where this accidental shooting occurs.

[stevesh]

Accidental is a myth.

Might just be a question of defining 'accidental', but I'm not sure I get your point. Much attention is paid to safety issues during driver's training, too. Does that mean there are no auto 'accidents' ?