Friends. Family. Guns and Crime. We've already written here recently about the correlation between family and friends and guns used in crime.
This is an instance where they eliminated the middle man - and left the guest of honor at his home coming party celebrating his return from combat paralyzed. But according to the pro-gunners, we shouldn't stop the wrong people from having guns before they do things like this, because guns are just inanimate objects that can be used to shoot people.
Of course, the reality is that guns are weapons, and some people shouldn't have them, because they do bad things with them. Presumably the shooter or shootist was carrying a firearm for protection from goblins, people who did something he perceived as threatening. We never see people who admit they are not safe with firearms or who believe they shouldn't have them because they don't know when it is safe or appropriate to use them. The people who do these shootings all want their firearms, and are adamant they should be able to have them and bring them everywhere ........and then someone gets hurt or killed who shouldn't have been.
From MSNBC.com and the AP:
California soldier shot at his homecoming party
Gabriel Luis Acosta / AP Suzanne Sullivan holds a photo of her son Christopher Sullivan, an Army soldier, outside her home in San Bernardino, Calif., Saturday, Dec. 24, 2011. Sullivan, who survived a suicide bombing last December while serving in Afghanistan, is now in critical condition after a gunman shot him during his homecoming home party Friday in San Bernardino. (AP Photo/The San Bernardino Sun, Gabriel Luis Acosta)
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — An Army soldier who survived a suicide bombing while serving in Afghanistan has been left paralyzed after being shot at his homecoming party in Southern California.Christopher Sullivan, 22, was shot late Friday while trying to break up a fight between his brother and another man at a San Bernardino residence.
"My son didn't deserve this. He served his country," his mother, Suzanne Sullivan, told the San Bernardino Sun (http://bit.ly/sjycMA).
Suzanne Sullivan said her son suffered two gunshot wounds to his back, which shattered his spine. Family members told the newspaper that the shooting late Friday left Sullivan paralyzed and in critical condition.
Police said Sullivan's brother and a partygoer got into an argument. When Sullivan moved to intervene, the man pulled a gun and opened fire.
The gunman fled the scene before police arrived.
Sullivan was wounded in a suicide bombing attack last year in Kandahar while serving with the 101st Infantry Division.
He suffered a cracked collar bone and brain damage in the attack and has been recovering in Kentucky where he is stationed.
He was home on leave when the shooting occurred.
His enlistment would be complete in April, after which Sullivan had planned to come home to go to college.
Family members are calling on the shooter to surrender.
Police have not identified the suspect.
___
Information from: The Sun, http://www.sbsun.com
Where are the 72 yo guyz wit teh 9's when you REALLY need them?
ReplyDeleteInteresting, this can't possibly be true since Kali has strict gun control laws. Since it's a violation to carry, openly or concealed, a loaded firearm, I don't see how this could have happened. Oh, unless gun regulations don't work.
ReplyDeletesomeguy:
ReplyDeleteOh, unless gun regulations don't work.
They CAN work. They DO work in other places where there are no groups like the NRA gutting effective enforcement.
Guns are still way too easily available in this country.
That is because 40% of crimes the guns come from family and friends - that would be your fellow gun owners someguy.
Another 10% is straw purchases - that woudl be your fellow legal buyers buying with the intent to illegally transfer them.
And the rest are illegal guns which were obtained from legal buyers who didn't secure them so as to make theft difficult.
But in countries where there is not such an abundant supply of firearms, gun regulations work very very well.
dog gone:
ReplyDeletesomeguy has already demonstrated his keen grasp of obliviousness in the previous thread about how regulation of things like food prep and packaging do not keep people from getting sick.
There are laws against all sorts of things, laws which do not keep bad people from being people. Otoh, absent the laws, we have NO recourse when robbed, beaten, poisoned or injured in other ways by those criminals--so getting rid of the laws seems a bit, um, STOOPIT!
dog gone: "Guns are still way too easily available in this country."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where you get your numbers from, but we'll run with what you've given. "40% of crimes, the guns come from family and friends". It's already a crime to give a firearm to a person that's prohibited from possessing a firearm, so what other regulation would prevent this?
"Another 10% is straw purchases". That is also a crime, so, again, what other regulation would prevent this?
Any way you can point me to a couple of sources for your numbers?
democommie: "someguy has already demonstrated his keen grasp of obliviousness....." Awe, go on now, you're trying to flatter me
The 40% of guns used in crime coming from family and friends is from the DoJ Bureau of Justice statistics.
ReplyDeleteWe don't penalize the source of the guns sufficiently to hold those people accountable for their contribution of guns to those crimes.
I would argue that if someone's gun is used in a crime, that person should lose their rights to any guns.
Registration of firearms would make that much more possible, as would private transactions that required some kind of background check.
Now you can give someone a gun, sell them a gun or just loan them a gun, and if you are a private party, you aren't required to know by any objective means if that person is a criminal, drug user, or dangerously nuts.
I would propose the same kind of background checks that employers are required to perform for certain jobs before someone lets their firearm into the care custody or control of another person.
I'd also like to see some kind of insurance or bond paid for by the gun owner, that pays the crime victim if they let their gun get into the hands of someone who uses it in a crime.
I think that would make people be much more conscientious about reporting thefts, and especially be more conscientious about securing their firearm, as well as private transaction sales,
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas. Check your e-mail if you haven't already done so, today.
This:
"Now you can give someone a gun, sell them a gun or just loan them a gun, and if you are a private party, you aren't required to know by any objective means if that person is a criminal, drug user, or dangerously nuts."
is true, so far as it goes. The truth is that in most cases, "private sellers*" are able to get away with lying about whether they knew a buyer's background--which of course I would do if I had sold some KKKrazzeepants asshole a gun which wound up being used to commit a crime.
* Who may well be non-FFL, but dealers nonetheless--another feature of that non-existent "Private sales" loophole.
I wish that your side would get it right someday. We don't oppose keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. We can't see how you can identify those people in advance, though, and we know that your proposals would keep guns out of the hands of good people.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDelete"We don't oppose keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people."
Bulshit.
Are you actually so fucking stupid that you don't see the logical inconsistencies in your many statements? I prefer to think you're just a FUCKING LIAR, because the alternative is to think that you're suffering from some sort of serious cognitive disorder.
someguy said with incredible wit and intelligence, "Interesting, this can't possibly be true since Kali has strict gun control laws."
ReplyDeleteThat is the stupidest, lamest, tiredest inanity going. I only allow FWM to say that without comment because I like him.
dog gone said "The 40% of guns used in crime coming from family and friends is from the DoJ Bureau of Justice statistics."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find a recent report. The only one I found was from 1995, using data from 1993 to as far back as the 1980's
"Now you can give someone a gun, sell them a gun or just loan them a gun, and if you are a private party, you aren't required to know by any objective means if that person is a criminal, drug user, or dangerously nuts."
Ok, let's say there was a requirement to do a background check for private sales, (which seems to be a big thing with the anti rights people) you still won't be happy, because the system is flawed. There is already an issue with people using fake IDs to purchase firearms from dealers. I can only imagine the problem would get worse if you expect average joe who never even looks at his own ID to pick out a fake one.
"I'd also like to see some kind of insurance or bond paid for by the gun owner, that pays the crime victim if they let their gun get into the hands of someone who uses it in a crime."
Now you're wanting to pre-penalize a citizen for exercising their right.
mikeb302000 said "omeguy said with incredible wit and intelligence"
Were you feeling neglected and just trying to get a shout out? I'm still waiting for the block of instruction on the Castle Doctrine. I'm headed to the thread now, so maybe you did answer.
" There is already an issue with people using fake IDs to purchase firearms from dealers. I can only imagine the problem would get worse if you expect average joe who never even looks at his own ID to pick out a fake one."
ReplyDeleteliquor stores and bars have the same problem with underage drinkers; variety stores and other retailers have the same problem with forgers, stolen credit cards and the like. Drug testing agencies, social welfare agencies, corporate employers, government agencies of all sorts do ID checks on a routine and, in most cases, permanent basis. Every time I shop at Lowe's and ask for my military veteran's discount I am asked by the clerk (who is usually someone who knows me) to produce my VA Healthcare card. Somehow or other, all of the businesses and gummint offices manage to get it right MOST of the time. Of course they actually use electronic verification equipment, variously watermarked or otherwise "secure" documents and trained personnel. They also, generally, lack any socio-economic incentive to not follow the procedures.
I know a gal, her husband's a state trooper with over 25 years in the job, who checks ID's when she bartends. If the ID LOOKS fishy she refuses service as is her duty under the law. Oh, wait, maybe that's the problem, no penalties for people who "miss" a bad ID, 'cuz they'd lose the sale. It's the invisible trigger finger of the market place.
"I'd also like to see some kind of insurance or bond paid for by the gun owner, that pays the crime victim if they let their gun get into the hands of someone who uses it in a crime."
Now you're wanting to pre-penalize a citizen for exercising their right."
Yeah, we're like that. We also do that with people who drive cars, run businesses, own homes or do shit that they want to do with the expectation that if some bad shit happens they won't e wiped out, financially. Silly insurance companies, wtf are they thinking?
democommie said "Yeah, we're like that. We also do that with people who drive cars, run businesses, own homes or do shit that they want to do with the expectation that if some bad shit happens they won't e wiped out, financially. Silly insurance companies, wtf are they thinking?"
ReplyDeleteI challenge you to find, in the constitution, where is says "the right to drive a car shall not be infringed"
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteWhere have I ever supported letting the wrong people have guns? My argument is that we don't have the ability to identify broad swaths of the "wrong people" in advance, other than those with felony convictions. I also argue that none of the mechanisms proposed here would do the job that your side claims to want. What they would actually do is deny guns to a lot of good people.
So again, I'm not lying. We just disagree.
"I challenge you to find, in the constitution, where is says "the right to drive a car shall not be infringed"
ReplyDeleteWell, that would be impossible, but we all know that.
When shooting someone in a public way, your right collides with theirs. But the, for you gunzloonz it's all about "dead men tell no tales...