tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post6960613212744614432..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Oklahoma Man Accidentally Kills HimselfAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-4039394149273384432014-10-10T02:03:59.292+02:002014-10-10T02:03:59.292+02:00Cute SS. The same disregard you show for innocent ...Cute SS. The same disregard you show for innocent lives lost to gun shot. Make a joke out of it, or better yet pull out your stats-how many gun loons have killed themselves by their own stupidity using their own guns?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-82484419120742864572014-10-07T15:40:31.966+02:002014-10-07T15:40:31.966+02:00Please explain how you could possibly think that s...<i>Please explain how you could possibly think that since I've repeatedly and continually said people WHO MISUSE their gun get disarmed.</i><br /><br />Because <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/10/oklahoma-man-accidentally-kills-himself.html?showComment=1412269704010#c6204983466574153693" rel="nofollow">of <i>this</i></a>:<br /><br /><i>[The late Mr. Calk] might be alive today if he'd been disarmed in the past on one of his previous f**k-ups.</i><br /><br />Apparently, we are to assume that he <i>already had</i> misused a gun (more than once).<br /><br />Before I can "fall back on . . . <i>another</i> lie," we're going to need to find the <i>first</i> "lie"--and I gotta tell you, that search ain't going too well.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-89027465719421979962014-10-07T15:18:49.231+02:002014-10-07T15:18:49.231+02:00You first left this part out: "without any do...You first left this part out: "without any documented evidence of prior wrongdoing on his part,"<br /><br />When I called you on it, you fell back on this, another lie: "I can only conclude that even without such a record, you believe he should have been disarmed."<br /><br />Please explain how you could possibly think that since I've repeatedly and continually said people WHO MISUSE their gun get disarmed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-14940699231002299022014-10-07T15:02:56.283+02:002014-10-07T15:02:56.283+02:00But, you're honesty and integrity are beyond r...<i>But, you're honesty and integrity are beyond reproach, right, Kurt?</i><br /><br />Well <i>you</i>'ve certainly not found a valid reason to attack them.<br /><br /><a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/10/oklahoma-man-accidentally-kills-himself.html?showComment=1412505653304#c2574730250108809039" rel="nofollow">You say</a>, "I said IF there had been a strict one strike you're out policy in effect, he probably would have been disarmed before." That's the policy you have long advocated. <br /><br />There are no documented (as far as I can find) prior incidents of dangerous behavior on Calk's part. Therefore, I can only conclude that even <i>without</i> such a record, you believe he should have been disarmed. If that conclusion is incorrect (by some mechanism I <i>still</i> can't imagine), it will of course not be my first mistake of that sort, but it is certainly not an indictment of my integrity.<br />Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-54642564364989305082014-10-07T09:14:31.448+02:002014-10-07T09:14:31.448+02:00I've consistently called for the disarming of ...I've consistently called for the disarming of people who prove their incapacity to handle guns safely. You accused me of something else quite different.<br /><br />"You've advocated disarming the late Mr. Calk without any documented evidence of prior wrongdoing on his part,"<br /><br />But, you're honesty and integrity are beyond reproach, right, Kurt?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-1624025182378397272014-10-05T16:01:49.570+02:002014-10-05T16:01:49.570+02:00I said IF there had been a strict one strike you&#...<i>I said IF there had been a strict one strike you're out policy in effect . . . </i><br /><br />Which is <i>precisely</i> the policy you demand. In other words, "IF" the policy which you have advocated so long and shrilly had been in place, "he probably would have been disarmed before."<br /><br />How does saying "IF the policy I want were in effect, he probably would have been disarmed," differ from advocating his disarmament?Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-25747302501088090392014-10-05T12:40:53.304+02:002014-10-05T12:40:53.304+02:00"You've advocated disarming the late Mr. ..."You've advocated disarming the late Mr. Calk without any documented evidence of prior wrongdoing on his part, let alone his having "injure[d] another."<br /><br />I did not. I said IF there had been a strict one strike you're out policy in effect, he probably would have been disarmed before.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-50812785152399735822014-10-05T07:17:13.470+02:002014-10-05T07:17:13.470+02:00Do you think there is enough judges to handle the ...Do you think there is enough judges to handle the 30-50 million judicial reviews you are calling for?TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-8705532366667730092014-10-05T03:09:34.825+02:002014-10-05T03:09:34.825+02:00And wait a second--"judicial review"? Y...And wait a second--"judicial review"? You've advocated disarming the late Mr. Calk without <i>any</i> documented evidence of prior wrongdoing on his part, let alone his having "injure[d] another." So how would this "judicial review" process play out? Here's what I see:<br /><br /><i>The "Honorable" Judge Mikeb: Mr. Calk, this court recognizes that you have owned a gun long enough that by now, you just </i><b>gotta</b><i> have done </i>something<i> wrong with your gun. <b>No guns for you!</b> It's for your own good, you bumbling idiot [Judge Mikeb's favorite term for gun owners].</i><br /><br />Is that kinda what you have in mind?Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-87651526072799931752014-10-04T15:21:22.541+02:002014-10-04T15:21:22.541+02:00So, no, it wouldn't be zero strikes you're...<i>So, no, it wouldn't be zero strikes you're out.</i><br /><br />If you say so. Can't help but wonder if your position might "evolve" at some point, though.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-5853202763671493952014-10-04T15:00:23.138+02:002014-10-04T15:00:23.138+02:00Kurt, it's really a tedious pain in the ass wh...Kurt, it's really a tedious pain in the ass when you throw us back to earlier arguments that have been beaten to death. My idea, which I have clarified numerous times, is that there would be judicial review. So, no, it wouldn't be zero strikes you're out. And like all judicial determinations, the milder infractions would not merit the maximum sanctions, but, when someone violates the safety rules and injures another, there would be no question of surrendering the gun rights for all eternity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-33579317817168058512014-10-04T01:36:32.427+02:002014-10-04T01:36:32.427+02:00In fact, the "zero strikes you're out&quo...In fact, the "zero strikes you're out" concept would seem to fit very well with the position <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/07/idaho-man-arrested-in-connection-to.html?showComment=1373448568839#c1761559431540469845" rel="nofollow">you outlined here</a> (bold emphasis added):<br /><br /><i>Back up what? Take back what? That you probably have and [sic] a misuse incident?<br /><br />Let's see, that could be something as mild as having muzzled someone even for a moment, or fingered the trigger when you shouldn't have or having forgotten you left a round in the chamber for a moment. Of course, you may have had a negligent discharge or you may have dropped a gun. Hell, for all we know you may have done something much worse.<br /><br />No, I take nothing back. <b>Anyone who owns a gun for any length of time is likely to have had one of these incidents, but just like your false-DGU shooters, they would never admit it.</b></i><br /><br />Think about that: "Anyone who owns a gun for any length of time is likely to have had one of these incidents . . . ." Now, "any length of time" is rather ambiguous. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time" rel="nofollow">Planck time unit</a> is, after all, a "length of time." I'm not seriously suggesting that you contend that anyone who has owned a gun for 53.9 quattuordecillionths of a second is likely to already have behaved badly with that gun. Still, it would be useful to know just <i>how much</i> time would pass after becoming a gun owner, before you believe that the bad behavior rate would reach, say, 50%. How long, in other words, before we should conclude even in the utter absence of known incidents of bad behavior with a gun, that the owner actually probably <i>has</i> secretly done something deserving of the harsh penalty of lifetime forcible disarmament, as per the "zero strikes you're out" doctrine?<br /><br />But however long it is, it would seem that you are arguing that lengthy ownership of a gun is <i>itself</i> grounds for reasonable suspicion that the owner has behaved dangerously irresponsibly with his or her gun--"probable cause" for lifetime forcible disarmament. You appear to be arguing, in effect, for the population of gun owners to be made to grow proportionately <i>less experienced</i>--for "safety."Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-26020066275671605752014-10-03T18:31:24.263+02:002014-10-03T18:31:24.263+02:00You know it occurs to me, Mikeb, that "one st...You know it occurs to me, Mikeb, that "one strike you're out" doesn't accurately describe what you're demanding here. If you want someone forcibly disarmed for life <i>before</i> he or she is known to have committed any of the vast (and ever-growing) number of sins that justify such a fate, what you're actually demanding is "<i>zero</i> strikes you're out."Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-12663567538143282472014-10-03T15:23:13.618+02:002014-10-03T15:23:13.618+02:00Um. "blinders," Mikeb? What, specifical...Um. "<i>blinders</i>," Mikeb? What, specifically, have you seen here, that I haven't? Keep in mind that I said "seen"--not speculated on without factual basis.Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-30478324974864434942014-10-03T08:48:35.938+02:002014-10-03T08:48:35.938+02:00Keep those blinders on, Kurt. That's how you ...Keep those blinders on, Kurt. That's how you do it. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-59598234761907516592014-10-03T03:53:49.052+02:002014-10-03T03:53:49.052+02:00Stories like this cheer me up immensely. One more ...Stories like this cheer me up immensely. One more gunsuck out of the picture.POed Former-Libhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04515300327544898083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-9714153111791050142014-10-02T22:58:45.645+02:002014-10-02T22:58:45.645+02:00[The tragically departed] might be alive today if ...<i>[The tragically departed] might be alive today if he'd been disarmed in the past on one of his previous fuck-ups.</i><br /><br />Um . . . one of <i>what</i> "previous f**k-ups"? One of the ones about which we have exactly zero evidence ever happened?Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-62049834665741536932014-10-02T19:08:24.010+02:002014-10-02T19:08:24.010+02:00My theory is that when gun owners are caught viola...My theory is that when gun owners are caught violating the safety rules, it's rarely their first time. This bumbling idiot might be alive today if he'd been disarmed in the past on one of his previous fuck-ups.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-61228776145925590452014-10-02T18:37:29.321+02:002014-10-02T18:37:29.321+02:00If he had followed simple safe gun handling rules ...If he had followed simple safe gun handling rules he would still be alive. I wonder if he even knew simple safe gun handling rules?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-9848989288362009882014-10-02T14:22:24.534+02:002014-10-02T14:22:24.534+02:00It appears that in this case, the one strike you&#...It appears that in this case, the one strike you're out rule has been applied.ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.com