Thanks to Top of the Chain.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Utah the Gun Owners' Paradise
The Salt Lake Tribune reports on an "accidental" shooting.
Secondly, why would someone not pack their gun properly at home before heading to the airport? Wouldn't that be the safest and smartest way to do it, minimizing the handling necessary at the busy check-in station? Do you think he was concerned he might have a shootout with some bad guys on the way to the airport?
This illustrates one of the problems with the gun mentality. You sure don't want to need the gun and not have it, so carry it at all times, even at the cost of common sense. That's what they do in Utah, and elsewhere. It's a subtle type of fear that causes people to arm themselves in situations in which their needing the gun is extremely unlikely.
What's your opinion? Do you think gun owners are motivated by fear? Please leave a comment.
A passenger checking a gun accidentally discharged his weapon on the curbside of Terminal 1 of Salt Lake City International Airport.
The passenger was declaring his weapon to a Sky Cap when he either mishandled or dropped it, said David Korzep, airport operations superintendent. The semiautomatic pistol had one bullet left in the chamber, Korzep said, and when it struck the pavement, shrapnel hit the foot of the Sky Cap employee. He was treated on the scene and not transported to the hospital.
"The injuries are pretty minor," Korzep said.
Airport police were questioning the passenger.
To properly check a gun, the weapon must be in a hard, locked case and the entire weapon, including the chamber, must be cleared. The ammunition must be stored separately.
First of all, I say one strike you're out. Let me ask you this. Would you trust a guy like him to be in the presense of your family, a guy who's proven to be capable of this kind of gun handling? Are you of the opinion that accidents can happen to anyone? Doesn't that violate the personal responsibility I keep hearing about? Accidents happen to people who commit them, wouldn't you say?
Secondly, why would someone not pack their gun properly at home before heading to the airport? Wouldn't that be the safest and smartest way to do it, minimizing the handling necessary at the busy check-in station? Do you think he was concerned he might have a shootout with some bad guys on the way to the airport?
This illustrates one of the problems with the gun mentality. You sure don't want to need the gun and not have it, so carry it at all times, even at the cost of common sense. That's what they do in Utah, and elsewhere. It's a subtle type of fear that causes people to arm themselves in situations in which their needing the gun is extremely unlikely.
What's your opinion? Do you think gun owners are motivated by fear? Please leave a comment.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Mother and Son Shooting in Detroit
CNN reports on the case in Detroit in which a mother armed her 15-year-old son and encouraged him to commit murder.
That's a sad story. Of course it touches on our never-ending discussions about shared responsibility. I suppose the pro-gun folks who so vehemently resist my ideas will insist this is a wrongful conviction. After all, the mother didn't pull the trigger.
My question though, is not about the shared responsibility, which spreads out from this incident like ripples in a pond, but rather about the origins of the gun. Where do you suppose it came from? Who do you think was the last lawful owner of that gun and how did it move into the criminal world?
As I see it, there are only a few ways, all of which taint the last legal owner. It was either stolen or it was transferred knowingly or unknowingly to a criminal.
Some people don't like my blaming the victim of theft for losing the gun. I admit there are cases in which all proper precautions are taken and the guns are stolen anyway. But more often than not, I'd say there's some failure on the part of the gun owner which enabled the thief to succeed.
Some have said the gun owner who knowingly transfers a gun to a criminal is a criminal himself. But the same people who say that also demand proof for everything; they accept nothing without it. So, I suppose that means the gun owner who is slick enough to transfer his gun to a criminal without implicating himself enjoys his rights of presumed innocence and is therefore a lawful gun owner still. There are a lot of them out there like that, and I'll bet they will be the first to demand proof of me for saying this.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A Detroit mother has been found guilty of murder for driving her 15-year-old son to the scene of a fatal shooting at a recreation center and supplying him with a gun.
A Wayne County Circuit jury found Tarranisha Davis guilty of second-degree murder.
Prosecutors said 35-year-old Davis drove her son to the Considine Little Rock Family Life Center on Oct. 8 and opened the hood of her vehicle where he then retrieved a hidden revolver.
Four shots were fired and one struck 19-year-old Demitry Jackson in the head.
Prosecutors said Jackson was an innocent bystander who had gone to the center to play basketball.
“She made her son come back to the scene, she armed him, she prodded him,” prosecutor Lisa Lindsey said. “Just like a gun when you pull the trigger, he fired.”
That's a sad story. Of course it touches on our never-ending discussions about shared responsibility. I suppose the pro-gun folks who so vehemently resist my ideas will insist this is a wrongful conviction. After all, the mother didn't pull the trigger.
My question though, is not about the shared responsibility, which spreads out from this incident like ripples in a pond, but rather about the origins of the gun. Where do you suppose it came from? Who do you think was the last lawful owner of that gun and how did it move into the criminal world?
As I see it, there are only a few ways, all of which taint the last legal owner. It was either stolen or it was transferred knowingly or unknowingly to a criminal.
Some people don't like my blaming the victim of theft for losing the gun. I admit there are cases in which all proper precautions are taken and the guns are stolen anyway. But more often than not, I'd say there's some failure on the part of the gun owner which enabled the thief to succeed.
Some have said the gun owner who knowingly transfers a gun to a criminal is a criminal himself. But the same people who say that also demand proof for everything; they accept nothing without it. So, I suppose that means the gun owner who is slick enough to transfer his gun to a criminal without implicating himself enjoys his rights of presumed innocence and is therefore a lawful gun owner still. There are a lot of them out there like that, and I'll bet they will be the first to demand proof of me for saying this.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
America Forever
From Wikipedia, here's the description of this part.
3. Dovunque al mondo ("Throughout the world"). With echoes of the Star Spangled Banner, Pinkerton tells Sharpless that, throughout the world, the Yankee wanderer is not satisfied until he captures the flowers of every shore and the love of every beautiful woman. "So I am marrying in the Japanese style: for 999 years, but with the right to cancel the marriage each month". Sharpless is critical of Pinkerton’s beliefs, but they stand and agree, "America forever". Pinkerton tells Goro to bring Butterfly to him. When Goro leaves, Sharpless asks Pinkerton if he is really in love.
4. Amore o grillo ("Love or fancy"). Pinkerton admits to Sharpless that he does not know whether he is really in love or just infatuated, but he is bewitched with Butterfly’s innocence, charm and beauty, like a butterfly fluttering around and then landing with silent grace, so beautiful "that I must have her, even though I injure her butterfly wings". Sharpless tells Pinkerton that he heard Butterfly speak, when she visited the Consulate, and he asks Pinkerton not to pluck off her delicate wings. However, Pinkerton tells Sharpless that he will do "no great harm, even if Butterfly falls in love." Sharpless takes his glass of whisky and offers a toast to Pinkerton’s family at home, to which Pinkerton adds, "and to the day when I will have a real wedding and marry a real American bride." Goro re-enters to tell Pinkerton and Sharpless that Butterfly’s friends are coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)