Police say the boy shot Kenzie Marie Houk, who was eight months pregnant, once at pointblank range in her farmhouse in western Pennsylvania.
The boy, whose name was withheld by CNN because he is a juvenile, was charged with one count each of criminal homicide and homicide of an unborn child in the death of Houk, 26, Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo told CNN.
On the Greenwich Diva site, we learn that the boy's name is Jordan Brown. This site, by the way is a treasure trove of crime stories; I've bookmarked it.
As I was reading the story on CNN, I thought it was another example of what we've been discussing a lot lately. I'm always interested in the availability of guns and how that factor can make the difference. Thinking this was yet another example, I was shocked and chilled when I read the following piece of information.
The weapon was a youth model 20-gauge shotgun, designed for use by children, that belonged to the boy, according to investigators.
The "youth model," I suppose is smaller and lighter and must have an easier trigger pull. I'm just guessing, of course, because not one of my pro-gun friends ever mentioned this to me. In our numerous discussions about kids and guns, when we've talked about "gun-proofing" the kids instead of "kid-proofing" the guns, no one ever mentioned this fascinating little tidbit of gun lore. And I guess I have only my own naiveté to blame. What good-ole-boy, macho, home-protecting, animal-shooting, 2nd Amendment Rights believer worth his salt wouldn't want his ten-year-old to have his very own shotgun, you know, the one "designed for use by children."
Needless to say, I find this abominable. I now realize there must be many households in which the pre-teen boys have their very own deadly weapons and only rarely does one of them blow away the future step-mother, but I find it sad and pathetic and peculiarly American.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
LONOKE – Young shooters from across the state set their sights on Lonoke Saturday for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission’s Youth Shooting Sports Program State Championship.
ReplyDeleteThirty-two teams arrived at the Remington Gun Club Saturday morning after qualifying for the state championship through regional competitions held in May. Two shooting divisions were represented – Junior (Grades 6-8) and Senior (Grades 9-12).
http://www.outdoorcentral.com/outdoor-kids/arkansas-youth-shooting-sports-championship-hits-its-mark
What is The American Legion Junior Shooting Sports Program?
It’s a three-part program that combines the Basic Marksmanship Course, Qualification Awards, and Air Rifle Competition. During the past decade of this program’s continued fast growth, thousands of male and female junior shooters have participated, with a perfect safety record of no reported gun-related injuries. Participants in The American Legion Junior Shooting Sports Program can be of any gender, through the age of 18. Handicapped youth are encouraged to participate.
http://www.legion.org/programs/youthprograms/shooting
After qualifying in their respective state championships, 13 Montana 4-H youth will attend the National 4-H Invitational Tournament in Grand Island, Neb., June 23-26. Competitive events include air rifle, air pistol, small bore rifle, shotgun, muzzle loading, compound archery and recurve archery.
"This is the national championship for 4-H shooting sports," said Todd Kesner, Montana 4-H program coordinator for ag and natural resources.
Montana has taken first place in air rifle, air pistol and archery events the past two years.
"When Montana kids step to the line, the rest of the country takes notice" said Kesner
http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=6001
Introduced in the United States in the early 1980’s, Sporting Clays is commonly referred to as "golf with a shotgun.” Targets simulate the flight of different game species such as teal, dove, quail, pheasant and bouncing rabbit, and competitors walk from shooting station to shooting station. The governing body of Sporting Clays is the National Sporting Clays Association (NSCA), which has almost 15,000 members nationwide.
All three are challenging, exciting sports for all ages and can be shot on an equal basis by participants of any stature, as well as the physically challenged.
To build upon this great shooting sports tradition, the Board of Directors of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has established the Scholastic Clay Target Program (SCTP). Joining NSSF in this nationwide effort is the ATA, NSSA and the NSCA and their affiliated state associations, as well as state wildlife and natural resources agencies from across the country.
http://www.shootkta.com/kta_youth_shooting_cordinators.htm
And I guess I have only my own naiveté to blame. What good-ole-boy, macho, home-protecting, animal-shooting, 2nd Amendment Rights believer worth his salt wouldn't want his ten-year-old to have his very own shotgun, you know, the one "designed for use by children."
Your ignorant and insulting question is answered.
i heard about this when i was up in PA skiing last week... it happened not too far away. horrible horrible stuff...
ReplyDeleteWhy is it, Mike, that stories such as this tragic one never seem to appear in Switzerland, Germany, France or England?
ReplyDeletePerhaps American boys hold much more anger than the Swiss or German youth?
Maybe adults here in America anger children more than French and English adults do?
Gosh, I'll have to research those two angles of this story and report back later.
Mudrake,
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is because you aren't looking for it.
How at risk of being victims of crime are youths?
The British Crime Survey 2003 found men aged 16 to 24 were the population group most at risk, with 15.1% experiencing a violent crime in the year prior to interview.
How often do young people offend against their peers?
A Mori study for the Youth Justice Board early last year found 68% of crime victims in mainstream schools and 66% in excluded projects said the offence they were a victim of was carried out by someone under the age of 18.
I've posted stats showing that U.K. is actually more violent then America. Mike and the rest of you ignored them. Why? Because the majority of the crimes weren't accomplished with a firearm?
Merkel pledges youth crime crackdown
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, today gave her backing to a controversial plan to introduce boot camps and "warning shot" spells in prison for criminal youths.
Merkel said that the measures - sparked by an election-driven debate about young immigrants and violent crime - were necessary to give Germany an "atmosphere of basic security".
Her announcement followed an incident in which a pensioner was beaten up by two foreign youths, provoking national outrage and declarations by a Merkel ally that foreign youths were behind a growing wave of violent crime.
"Warning shot arrests and boot camps could clearly be a sensible complement to criminal law," the chancellor told a tabloid newspaper. "They could encourage young people to change and prevent them from getting sent to prison later."
At the weekend, Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) proposed a swathe of tougher laws to crack down on young criminals, including higher sentences and the swifter extradition of immigrant offenders
Research and report back Mud, I'll be interested in reading your results.
Violence is not a uniquely American problem.
Good play Bob. Muddy, you just got PWNT.
ReplyDeleteAs for Mike, Yep Youth Model shotguns and rifles a smaller and lighter to be easily handled by youth and smaller people (My wife shoots a shotgun with a "Youth" stock, as do many women, and I know a few men of slight-build who also use rifle stocks marketed as "youth"...adjustable stocks also work well for people who are built smaller than the average American male...that's also one of the "Assault Weapon" features BTW) Trigger pull is identical, almost all rifles and shotguns have a single-action trigger pull that is very light, so the mechanics of the gun is no different than the big-boys.
Still here's a national story of a tragic event. But much like the recent story of a plane being brought down by Geese, doesn't make this a significant occurrence.
Remember citing the study you posted yesterday, there are 22 MILLION children like this one, yet this is the only story of it's sort.
As we say: "Gun control is what you do instead of Something"
So to talk real solutions, I'm glad to see the boy is facing adult charges (and is being charged with the death of the unborn child, as that is also a count of Murder) it will be up to the court to determine if he is in fact competent as an adult (something I have no right to comment on) but I'm glad the tools are on the table.
Been looking hard for some data about the Swiss, French, Germans and English kids, but can't find much data about personalities, growing-up, and angry parents.
ReplyDeleteI did find some gun data. Seems that the Swiss like to blow their brains out quite a lot. Must be that high altitude or always standing crookedly. Maybe it's the cow pies or those damned cow bells.
Although the Swiss use a gun in murdering some other Swiss, less than 1 time in 100,000 population, they blow their heads off at rate 6 times greater than that.
I also found that the Finns are 3rd in line of gun deaths among the first-world nations. Damned cold weather and reindeer dung there!
The French come in 5th, again mostly self dead-heading. Bad wine?
The Germans and the Brits are way low on the graph, apparently more into poison, cliffs and hanging.
{http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Releases/GlobalGunEpidemicRev07.pdf}
Then there are the 3rd world nations. Damn! They are some angry people!!
South Africas must be shooting each other for fun 24/7. Seventy-four firearm murders per 100K. Of course, they ARE angry about decades of apartheid and now are venting [on each other!]
Colombia is #2 in gun murders. Sure isn't Juan Valdez, the coffee grower. Must be his cousin, Pedro, the coca grower. Fifty-two per 100K there. BANG! BANG!
These guys put America to shame- we are a measly 3/100K. What happened to our patriotism?
USA! Say it with me: USA! USA!
If you are concerned about the youth model shotgun, look up the Cricket rifle...A tiny single-shot bolt-action .22 for young children, available in pink. The single shot is both to keep price low and for safety-it prevents problems when a shooter gets excited after their first shot.
ReplyDelete"Designed for children" doesn't mean they should keep it in their toybox. Guns like this are essential to teach gun safety, and so small women have the same access as large men.
If I had young children, I would almost certainly have child-sized guns available. They might even "belong" to my child, with restrictions--They would need to keep it in my safe, and only use it with my permission.
I don't know where the line should be for adult crimes-it depends to some extent on the circumstances. Although I can think of circumstances where I'd think it appropriate to charge a minor as an adult, those circumstances would be for older teens engaged in a pattern of crime, or working at criminal enterprises. This doesn't meet my criteria.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteGreat work, now could you compare those country's gun control laws?
Compare the gun control laws, the number of firearms per person.
But don't stop there, look at the total violence levels. Assault rates, robbery, theft, rape.
You might find for all the firearms America has, it is not the most violent country in the world.
Check out the crime rates in Mexico and their strict gun control laws.
Don't forget to research how England has consistently under reported their crime rates.
A great site for this type of information is Nationmaster.com
Bob, that's nice reporting on a bunch of good kids who are participating in a sports competition, but it is absolutely irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteI was going to forward this story of the 11 year old to Mike, but now I think I should forward you the story of the Kansas woman who was shot in the back of the head by her boyfriend and was saved by her industrial strength hair weave...
Now that's happy gun story.
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteDo you have reading comprehension difficulties?
Mike insultingly asked: What good-ole-boy, macho, home-protecting, animal-shooting, 2nd Amendment Rights believer worth his salt wouldn't want his ten-year-old to have his very own shotgun, you know, the one "designed for use by children."
I answered his question with examples of children participating in sports and using firearms constructively.
Anything can be misused, firearms are certainly not the only items.
How about the All American favorite past time - baseball?
Father, two sons, are charged in baseball-bat attack at Millburn H.S.
by Ralph R. Ortega and Rohan Mascarenhas/The Star-Ledger
Sunday January 11, 2009, 10:00 PM
A father and his two sons beat another teenager with a baseball bat in the parking lot of Millburn High School, sending him to the hospital in an attack initially aimed at another boy, officials said today.
Now because of the misuse of a baseball, would you advocate the abolition of Little League baseball?
Should we take steps to reduce the availability of baseball bats to reduce the flow of legal bats to criminals?
Firearms, like baseball bats, are tools. It is the intent of the PERSON using them that makes the difference.
Mike seems to think that controlling firearms will control crime, isn't that a mistaken belief?
Doesn't crime in the U.K. prove it to be wrong?
"Firearms, like baseball bats, are tools. It is the intent of the PERSON using them that makes the difference."
ReplyDeleteOnly Baseball bats don't save as many lives. So maybe bats SHOULD be bad...they're only good for children's games and assaults....
I have lived in many European countries. The amount of violence on the streets, groups surrounding a single victim and kicking the shit kicked out of you - far outnumbers the USA. Public drinking and fights outside of bars are much more violent. Being French or German does not automatically mean you're less violent.
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do with guns. Actually in the USA people are much more polite to each other in neighborly disagreements because 'you never know' whether the neighbor won't go home and get his gun.
Bob- I'm not too interested in 'proving' anything here because, as I have said repeatedly, nothing will be resolved between the pro and anti-gun folks.
ReplyDeleteI just like to play around with some data and poke holes in 'logic.'
I wonder how I ever 'made it' to my 67th birthday without ever owning or shooting a gun. I've lived in big cities my entire life [Toledo, Detroit] and never saw the need to own a gun to protect me or my family.
Was I just a 'lucky' guy not to get robbed or assaulted through all of those urban years? Was god and my guardian angel watching over me?
I don't think so. It's all about attitude and being smart.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteNot just about attitude but any one who owns a firearm tells you that is the first step.
It's about being aware of your environment, taking steps to avoid problems, communicating to those that would do you harm that you are watching them. If that is attitude and what you have great. If you never felt the need to own a firearm, great. More power to you.
I am not, nor any one I know, advocating everyone be required to go armed. That is not the goal I'm after, I'm after people like Mike to stop calling for my forced disarmament.
The probability of someone being involved a crime depends on many factors; some under our control, others not. I find owning and carrying a firearm to be a sensible precaution. Much like owning flood insurance or catastrophic health care insurance. The likelihood of needing them isn't as paramount as the stakes if you don't have them.
Isn't it fair to ask that people stop advocating the abolition of my rights?
Isn't it fair to counter the false information put forward by the anti-firearm groups and people?
I might not change your mind, Mike's mind or anyone's, but I hope to affect some people who haven't made up their mind.
I also won't passively set back and allow my rights to be taken from me. That is why I'm here and on other sites. Fighting for our rights.
"Youth model" shotguns are also very useful for petite women. It's sometimes difficult for smaller women to wield something designed around 6ft. men.
ReplyDeletePeople aren't all the same size. Neither are guns. It's really that simple.
And you may find the concept of "youth" guns sad & pathetic but the rest of America does not. My 12 year old nephew has his own youth model 20 gauge and there are pistols and evil black guns in the house. (of course his father is a cop, so in your mind that probably changes your opinion entirely...)
As someone else said I find your question ignorant and insulting.
Mr. Potato, I can assure you Italy is not like that. And my own unofficial poll of folks I meet from the UK who visit Rome tells me they aren't worried about gun laws one way or the other. It's only Americans who are obsessed with guns. Look at me.
ReplyDeleteSevesteen, thanks for consistently responding to my posts with common courtesy and seriousness. If your way of writing is any indication of the way you'd teach your kids to be careful and responsible with guns, I have no doubt they'd be fine. But what about the others, the ones who are not as trustworthy. How many messed up family situations are there out there, many of whom are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights too. That's the problem.
"But what about the others, the ones who are not as trustworthy. How many messed up family situations are there out there, many of whom are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights too. That's the problem."
ReplyDeleteAt that point guns are superfluous. Of course we can go back to the statistical anomaly that is youth death by firearm. Of course there are many warning signs of a messed up family that makes them already precluded from firearm ownership, like addiction, domestic violence, assault ect.
But when it comes down to that a belt, a bottle, some drugs, really the possibility of a gun fades from relevance.
And For Muddy:
"I wonder how I ever 'made it' to my 67th birthday without ever owning or shooting a gun."
WOW the big question I have is what is wrong with you that you're a 67 year old internet troll/stalker?
No wonder you're such an unhappy person!
It isn't surprising that people in the UK aren't interested in firearms--Without exposure to them in a positive setting, most people won't develop an interest. We have a similar problem with inner cities here--The people there only see guns associated with crime. When they do see a story of a decent person defending, it is usually associated with a message that says something like "While Mr. Defender is not likely to be charged with a crime, police don't recommend fighting back"
ReplyDeleteMy political interest and activity (and switch to libertarian views) didn't come until I could get a carry license myself.
Weerd- you make me laugh. Apparently you and you alone can separate the wheat from the fhaff. Funny stuff. It's always a hoot reading your comments.
ReplyDeleteBob- I appreciate your thorough and sensible reply to my comment. You ask two questions:
Isn't it fair to ask that people stop advocating the abolition of my rights?
Yes, it is fair to ask that. The only question that I see that remains unanswered is when do these 'rights' interfere with society in general. There can be no doubt that the 'rights' of gun-ownership has been compromised with guns falling into the hands of children, the mentally unstable, and the bad guys.
How will this society be able to honor your right to own a gun and use it responsibly with the irresponsible gun use in our society? I don't know that answer.
Secondly,
Isn't it fair to counter the false information put forward by the anti-firearm groups and people?
Yes it is. Yet that works both ways. The pro-gun group cannot do the same and claim the moral high ground. Your 'side' has to face up to the widespread misuse of fire arms in this nation first before you demand the 'right' to ownership.
I'm not sure that the pro-gun lobby has done a thorough job of doing that.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion & points to debate
The only question that I see that remains unanswered is when do these 'rights' interfere with society in general.
Isn't that why we have laws in the first place? We have laws against the misuse of tools, be it a baseball bat swung at someone's head or a firearm shot at someone. Those abuses of the rights are already part of the social contract. We don't have a problem with that.
The fact that because some people misuse a tool does not mean we take that tool away from everyone.
Shouldn't we first look at the consequences of those misuses? One of the things that surprises and completely disappoints me is how often "gun crimes" are used as bartering chips. Police departments and prosecutors layer on the charges; Assault, Assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, possession of a firearm and narcotics ---then they completely throw away the charges to get the criminal to plead guilty to the lesser charges. That doesn't give any teeth to the existing laws, it almost makes a mockery of them. Why have the laws if they aren't going to be enforced?
There can be no doubt that the 'rights' of gun-ownership has been compromised with guns falling into the hands of children, the mentally unstable, and the bad guys.
Nobody wants firearms to be misused, to fall into the wrong hands but as has been asked here many times I think there are a couple of fundamental questions that need to be discussed.
1. How far do we go in preventing that misuse, in preventing those firearms from falling into the wrong hands?
Again, this is an area already covered by existing laws. In Texas, it is against the law to leave a firearm readily accessible by any child under 17 years of age. Does a law mandating a gun safe requirement change the fact that some people still won't secure their firearms? Nope, it just adds to the cost of ownership. Gun cabinets and safes aren't cheap.
Law exist to prohibit the transfer of firearms to those who aren't able to lawfully have them. What additional laws can we put in place to stop it?
2. Is the level of transfer - of flow to use Mike's term--high enough to warrant greater restrictions. Washington D.C. had some of the most restrictive gun control laws on the books. A District Court said those restrictions were unconstitutional, the 5 Supreme Court Justices said the same thing.
At what point do we say that liberty is dangerous but we e, as a society, have to accept people's misuse of something.
Cars are a great example. We have the technology to limit every car to an 'acceptable speed' 65, 70 miles per hour. Why don't we?
Because that restriction does not give us the greater benefit for the lose of freedom.
3. Are there better ways of addressing the problems? I've posted several times that if we address education, poverty, drug crime, jobs; then we can reduce crime rates without restriction our rights. Isn't that a better way? Isn't that a more productive way?
Restricting the rights of individuals should be the absolute last step. It should be reserved for the gravest of concerns. Firearm related crime is only 10% of all crime and that rate is falling. Shouldn't we put more effort into reducing crime in general?
Wouldn't that reduce firearm related crime and the vast majority of crime at the same time?
Isn't it fair to counter the false information put forward by the anti-firearm groups and people?
Yes it is. Yet that works both ways. The pro-gun group cannot do the same and claim the moral high ground.
Show me false information put out by the Pro-gun side and I'll help you counter it. Honestly, it hurts our position more then it is worth to have false information out there. I will fight with the same vigor to stop our side from lying as I do to stop the anti side.
Your 'side' has to face up to the widespread misuse of fire arms in this nation first before you demand the 'right' to ownership.
First, I don't "demand the 'right' to ownership". What I am asking for is people to stop trying to restrict it. To stop trying to take away that right.
Second, I don't know of anyone who isn't facing up to the misuse of firearms. It is a problem, as I said before, don't we have laws that address it?
The propaganda, yes that is the only word for it, put out by the anti-gun groups would have people believe that the vast majority of firearm owners are irresponsible, are involved in trafficking firearms to criminals, that we are criminals, that we are power mad, etc, etc.
How wide spread is the problem with firearm. Look at the data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Do the research and be amazed as I was to find out how much firearm crime is directly linked to gangs and drug trafficking.
We've posted before some numbers. In 2005 there were approximately 500,000 firearm crimes. Assuming 1 unique firearm per crime, that means out of 270,000,000 only 0.185% of firearms were involved in crime in 2005. Is that widespread?
Let's slant the odds in the anti-gun side's favor. Let's assume that every firearm related crime was committed with a handgun. Approximately 65,000,000 handguns in America - that is still only 0.769% of all handguns.
Is that widespread?
That leads back to the questions. Is it worth restricting the rights of the law abiding for the actions of a few?
Would any greater restrictions actually make an impact on the actions of the few?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteJust go to see AC Milan or the best club in your area where you live and then buy a ticket in the 'nest' where the rowdiest fans go and then try to hang out with them after the game. You will get 're-educated' quick.
I have family in Milan...oh yeah and while you're at it check out the death rate from car accidents in Italy. Weekends are much fun.
ReplyDeleteWeerd, I cannot figure out the reasoning you use in attacking mudrake as an internet troll/stalker except that it is an insulting and demeaning label you can throw about in your attempt to smear his persona.
ReplyDeleteInsults and the use of language in humor is one thing, but I find your constant harping outright aggressive and nasty and it only makes you the fool because to anyone reading the thread, you resort to it when you have to use your brain to counter his reasoning.
There are a lot of things you can say to insult someone but you seem to be stuck in a rut which you think strikes a nerve.
Sevesteen, Thanks for that interesting take on the exposure to positive use of guns being important.
ReplyDeleteMr. P., You've got a point there. I don't go near the soccer stadiums, especially during one of the high-tension matches, and I drive very defensively on Saturday nights if I happen to be out. Still, this is a comparatively peaceful place.
"Weerd, I cannot figure out the reasoning you use in attacking mudrake as an internet troll/stalker except that it is an insulting and demeaning label you can throw about in your attempt to smear his persona."
ReplyDeleteOr I could simply be using a term properly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"
First up, Muddy appeared here only because Barb did, and his only topic of discussion was to deride Barb and call her an "infection". Barb also has some very good claims of threat/stalking/harassment from Muddy on her blog and from his. I have no reason to disbelieve these claims, and Muddy has done everything in his power to fit this bill.
Furthermore his comments here (spare a few) are rarely on-topic, and almost always reside primarily in the slinging of insults, rather than supporting a cause or an argument. (The same can be said for his blog)
So while it is an insulting thing to be called a troll, I am not slinging insults by calling a spade a spade.
"it only makes you the fool because to anyone reading the thread, you resort to it when you have to use your brain to counter his reasoning."
Maybe you should look a little deeper into things before you yourself sling insults. I highly doubt you will show me as much respect in justifying calling me a "fool", as I have just shown muddy.
And for Mike:
"Still, this is a comparatively peaceful place."
Compared to what? Compared to Washington DC? Compared to there Baghdad is a "comparatively peaceful place."
No sirree, this is becoming surreal.
ReplyDeleteIn my book, Barb is the classic definition of troll. Barb follows me from site to site and is obssessed with me. I have one way of dealing with her now. I ignore her and I will continue to ignore her. I have recieved real threats originating from her and watched as she almost destroyed another blog with her obsessive translating chapters from the bible into serbian, ukranian, french and posting them to completely disrupt a conversation she thought was offensive.
Of course, Barbs threats are lame words, but to get emails telling me that I am going to be reported to the department of homeland security and placed on the "no fly" list because she and her friends don't like my political opinions is pretty retarded.
To hear Mr. Potato Head criticize European society because of soccer game violence and then try to make the leap to reality is surreal.
I think I have totally lost the thread of logic that you and the pro gun posters are pursuing here.
Can you explain to me how and if you disagree with this statement?
Everyone should have the right to have as many guns as they want and carry them any where they want because you never know when you're are going to have to use them.
I have stated and made clear a number of times that I am not anti gun.
I am beginning to think that you regard this as your private boys club and dissenting opinions are to be quashed. Pretty pointless, humorless and not interesting.
One more frickin thing...
ReplyDeleteIf you had visited the big babes blog in the days leading up to the election, you would have found a bunch of hysterical ninnies wondering if they had to go and buy guns to protect themselves when the niggers started looting if Obama didn't win, or if he did win, they weren't sure.
Everyone should have the right to have as many guns as they want and carry them any where they want because you never know when you're are going to have to use them.
ReplyDeletenope, don't agree.
(1) not everyone; the prohibited persons classes exist for good reason, and they're mostly well chosen and defined.
(2) not as many as they want. only as many as they can afford.
(3) i'm a bit ambivalent about carry permits, but on balance they're probably a good idea as they encourage training and practice --- so, not everybody should get to carry; get a permit first.
(4) courthouses, police stations, and a few other places can be legitimately kept off limits for licensed concealed carry. i'm having a hard time making up my mind about private property with public access, such as stores.
(5) "because" has nothing to do with it. the only reason we need is "because it does no real harm to society to let us". "because" is a word you only need when going to ban something by force of law.
"No sirree, this is becoming surreal.
ReplyDeleteIn my book, Barb is the classic definition of troll. Barb follows me from site to site and is obssessed with me. I have one way of dealing with her now. I ignore her and I will continue to ignore her. I have recieved real threats originating from her and watched as she almost destroyed another blog with her obsessive translating chapters from the bible into serbian, ukranian, french and posting them to completely disrupt a conversation she thought was offensive."
From what I've seen here, Barb is more of a Spammer than anything else. She seems to be more-or-less on-topic, but painfully verbose and uninteresting. I haven't read her writing anywhere but here, as I had no desire to see her writings elsewhere. I certainly haven't seen anything constituting as a threat....but you have my ears.
So I do disagree, but I may not have all the evedence.
Then the following statements including your adorable dropping of the N-Bomb, were nothing more than perjorative and argumentative...and then you were ironic enugh to accuse claim Mr. potato of being surreal.
Unlike Barb and Mudrake you ARE an intellegent person Micro, and I greatly enjoy your insight and observations....but you're far above where you're going now. It doesn't become you.
From what I've seen here, Barb is more of a Spammer than anything else. She seems to be more-or-less on-topic, but painfully verbose and uninteresting.
ReplyDeletewith the caveat that she only seems to have the one single topic that she's always on, yeah. that's a common problem with fundies, though.
Yes, Weerd, I will admit to having lost my temper here and I regret having given too much "history" regarding this person who has bombarded me for years with emails about the guilt I should be feeling about my dead parents in regards to my out spoken feelings about religion or threats about my personal security.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty creepy to find when ever I start posting somewhere, and I do not post on very many blogs, that I am being stalked, so to speak.
My relationship with this person started on Mudrakes blog a few years ago. I lived in Toledo for 10 years and when I started to blog, I was very interested in finding out what was the mindset, politically, in the place I had lived in. Mudrakes blog was and is hands down the most intelligent blog happening in The Great Black Swampland area.
If anything, I value a sense of humor and being realistic in viewing problems from the bottom up. Human nature is the bottom line and as far as I am concerned, any theory about behavior that does not take into account that humans will always find a way to fuck it up, is just fluff....
The "N" bomb? Hey, it's reality and unfortunately racism is a very real thing and a very thin line you have to deal with when you talk about guns, behavior and society.
I have a very complicated personal history...the path I have taken in my journey to rural anonynomity in France was not a straight line by any means.
Maybe tomorrow, I will find this pretty funny, but for now, thanks for bearing with me.
"The "N" bomb? Hey, it's reality and unfortunately racism is a very real thing and a very thin line you have to deal with when you talk about guns, behavior and society."
ReplyDeleteOddly enugh the door swings both ways on that, given the racist nature and implications
http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm
As well as things like ownerous permmitting processes, fees, and restrictions on "junk guns" ("junk" being defined as "Affordable") Make firearms obtainable only by the wealthy and politically connected (which sadly is deeply held by white males).
It would cost roughly $1000 for a resident of Washington DC to buy some of the cheapest guns on the market. Costs north of $900 here in Mass (Fees are lower, but prices of guns are higher).
I don't think We'll ever get past racism in our lifetimes...but it will be a lot easier if when one group attempts to bash another, the defender can viably fight back.
Gun control laws generally do the most to stop that. One of the many reasons why I'm as adamant as I am.
I don't know about trolls and spammers, but it seems to me Barb has calmed down a bit. Maybe my peaceful vibes and advanced reconciliation techniques that have had such a meliorating effect on Weer'd and Bob are beginning to work on Barb as well. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI can only speak for myself. : ]
ReplyDeleteIgnorance (willful or otherwise) pisses me off.
Maybe the fact that you've reduced the number of times you accuse me and other lawful gun owners of contributing to crime has mellowed me out.
ReplyDeleteI thought of something this morning Mike... Maybe you can address this as part of your flow.
Many gun manufacturers, such as Beretta and Tanfoglio operate in foreign countries...away from the gun control laws of the U.S.
Perhaps part of the "flow" of guns to prohibit people are taking place in foreign countries, people purchasing firearms overseas and smuggling them into the U.S. without going through legal distribution.
Isn't it just as likely that you or your friends are a part of the "flow" as it is that Weer'd or I are part of the flow?
BTW: "Are you saying that defensive use of guns is more common than offensive? I don't think anybody believes that, Weer'd, not you and not the guys who spend their days compiling those stories. Yet, here you are throwing it out like you've said it many times and I keep "dismissing" it, and then you conclude that I don't care about violent crime. "
ReplyDeleteIs some weapons-grade ignorance (Willful because you KNOW the truth on that matter)
That really pissed me off. And for what? I'm still suspecting arrogance/ego. You know you're wrong, but won't admit it.
And the question still stands: "Why guns, Mike?"
Bob said, "Isn't it just as likely that you or your friends are a part of the "flow" as it is that Weer'd or I are part of the flow?"
ReplyDeleteI suppose you mean by my "friends" the Italians that manufacture and export the evil guns to America. Well, I don't happen to know any of them, but perhaps that would be a good place to look when assigning blame. Please understand that I never intended to say that you personally are part of the problem except in the most general terms. You all share in the responsibility for the gun violence, as I've said before, but that's more of a philosophical consideration than a practical one. I imagine you guys are among the vast majority of gun owners who are responsible and careful and yes, actually make your little worlds safer.
What I can't find an escape for is the fact that people being people, some percentage of "you guys" is bad news. Your oft-asked question, am I willing to punish the vast majority for the small percentage of problem cases is answered with a resounding affirmative by me. But you knew that already.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteDo you take responsibility for drunk drivers, for child molesters, for people who produce child porn?
Frankly, as an anti-gun peddler of Ignorance and misinformation, he definetly holds a large part of the blame for violence and death in gun-free zones, and states/cities with restrictive gun laws.
ReplyDeleteNo anlaogies, no comparisons, as Bob does. Stright-to-the-point, there is blood on your hands, Mike!