A man is blaming his dog for his wife's shooting death in San Luis Obispo County.Twenty-five-year-old John Norris is charged with involuntary manslaughter for shooting his wife in July as she say on a couch in their San Miguel condominium. A sheriff's deputy testified Tuesday at a preliminary hearing that Norris claimed he was standing on the stairs with a handgun when his dog tripped him and caused him to shoot his 24-year-old wife Tasha.
Norris says he had the pistol because he planned to remove the ammunition before fire inspectors arrived to examine new sprinklers. His attorney says Norris, who has no criminal record or history of domestic violence, loved his wife.
Norris has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and possessing an illegal weapon.
I know we've talked about it before, but shouldn't that last line be, "illegally possessing a weapon" instead of "possessing an illegal weapon." I dislike those sloppy renderings of the story because the pro-gun folks like to point them out as evidence that the media and the liberals and the gun control crowd don't know what they're talking about. The fact is, we do know what we're talking about and the way it's worded in the article perfectly communicates the idea, which is the main point. Ideas matter. When people derail the entire argument over minor miswordings that does not interrupt the flow of information, I have to wonder why they do that.
What do you think about John Norris? He had a gun in the home that for some reason he shouldn't have had even though he'd had no history of crime or domestic violence. What if he was just exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms in order to protect himself in the home? That wouldn't make him a bad guy, would it? The way I see it he's mainly guilty of having had a terrible accident.
Some say gun control laws don't work, that this guy is proof. California has strict laws, Norris disobeyed them. What I say is the strict gun control laws are not aimed at guys like Norris, who are willing to disregard them. The laws are aimed at the law abiding. There is a point at which a gun passes from the possession of a lawful owner to that of a criminal. The laws are aimed at the lawful gun owner and they should be made strict enough to better encourage that lawful gun owner to not allow the gun to pass to the criminal.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
In the Kalifornia, I wouldn't be surprised if it really were an "illegal" weapon. If it's not on their list of approved handguns, it's illegal.
ReplyDelete"The laws are aimed at the law abiding."
Which is about as pointless as giving speeding tickets to people aren't speeding.
"The laws are aimed at the lawful gun owner and they should be made strict enough to better encourage that lawful gun owner to not allow the gun to pass to the criminal."
It's already illegal to give a gun to a criminal. You're advocating a solution to a problem that already has one.
AztecRed, That's a good point. I guess it could have been an "illegal gun" after all.
ReplyDeleteAbout the speeding tickets, I think you twisted it a bit. The law against speeding is not aimed at those who are so disobedient or criminal that they won't cooperate but rather it's aimed at the law abiding who will. Fewer incidents of speeding happen because many of the law abiding drivers slow it down for no other reason than to avoid the sanctions. That's exactly how gun control works.
There you've done it, you've forced me to participate in one of these comparisons that I hate so much.
Sorry MikeB, but you folks (and the media) have routinely demonstrated you have no clue what you're talking about.
ReplyDelete"Norris says he had the pistol because he planned to remove the ammunition before fire inspectors arrived to examine new sprinklers."
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't pass the smell test.
There's more to this story.
The laws are aimed at the lawful gun owner and they should be made strict enough to better encourage that lawful gun owner to not allow the gun to pass to the criminal.
ReplyDeleteWhy keep repeating this BS MikeB?
It is a FELONY for a lawful gun owner to sell or otherwise transfer a gun to a criminal (prohibited person)
If there's a transaction occurring in which both parties are committing a felony what makes you think they'll care if we pass yet another law prohibiting such behavior?
Even if the penalty were death I doubt it'd be a substantial deterrent.
At least you admit all your BS restrictions are really meant to curtail my rights rather than stop criminals.
Mike W. said, "If there's a transaction occurring in which both parties are committing a felony what makes you think they'll care if we pass yet another law prohibiting such behavior?"
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me think they'll care is that the lawful gun owner in many of these cases has never committed a felony and because the laws covering private sales are so lax, he can easily turn a blind eye and not ask too many questions. But if the laws about registering the guns and doing background checks on all transfers were stricter, he wouldn't be able to do that.
kaveman, I'm agreeing with you all over the place tonight. This one definitely doesn't pass the smell test.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me think they'll care is that the lawful gun owner in many of these cases has never committed a felony and because the laws covering private sales are so lax
ReplyDeleteThat is a LIE MikeB. If you sell a gun to a prohibited person you are committing a felony. People willing to commit a felony won't suddenly start caring about the law if you outlaw private sales.