Saturday, November 13, 2010

Newark Cop - Domestic Abuser

I guess it's hard to prove crimes that take place inside the home.

Edward Duprey, 42, is charged with aggravated assault, making terroristic threats and weapons offenses in connection with a May incident inside the Newark home he shares with his girlfriend, said Katherine Carter, spokeswoman for the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office. 
This is definitely another case in support of FWM's idea: disarm the cops and leave the rest of them alone.

I don't think he really said that, I'm exaggerating. It does seem, though, that the cops are often the worst offenders.

 What do you think about that old castle doctrine, not the one which allows you to shoot someone but the more general one which says a man's home is his castle?  No one would like laws which extend within the walls of such sanctified autonomy, but I suppose they're necessary.  Certainly, it's fair for the government to forbid domestic violence within the home, even the threatening with a gun like in this case.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Mud-Rake on the Bush Book

Our friend Mudrake wrote a wonderful post about Bush's book.

How’s that George W. Bush scar coming along? Seems that he himself wants to poke around in that quite tender and recently closed set of risky adventures that he directed- adventures that sent tens of thousands of our military men and women to either early graves or a lifetime of disability.  Not to mention the billions of wasted tax dollars and our world-reputation.
We're often accused of being "Bush bashers." But what about the "Bush supporters" like Sepp, who have an answer for every criticism? His comments are really quite amazing.

What's your opinion? In retrospect, isn't President Bush worthy of a little bashing, or quite a lot? I say he should be in Leavenworth.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Cenk on Capitalism

Just when you thought we had identified all the loopholes.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment

A Message from Jeff Burkett

I received this very nice message from Jeff Burkett in response to my post which he linked below.  One thing I wondered is, did he misunderstand my reference to needing the car comparisons?  That was about the alcohol issue, which has been a hot topic around here lately.

Do these gun activists in Iowa, and our other commenters for that matter condone drinking while carrying a gun? Is it to be presumed that excess would be avoided, or is that also acceptable as long as you don't drive? What about at home, is there no limit to the amount of alcohol consumption a gun owner can enjoy? Is it always left up to his own common sense?

About the may issue / shall issue question, isn't the local sheriff in a unique position to determine this in the many cases in which, just for example, juvenile offenders coming of age haven't yet been branded with felonies but have demonstrated true irresponsibility.  And what about those folks who are dangerously unstable but have not yet been committed to an asylum?  Aren't these the reasons for giving the local cops that power?

These are my idea, which are well known.  Here's Jeff's message in its entirety, which I appreciated very much for its reasonable tone.

This article in the Chicago Tribune was not completely clear.  Does it mean all Iowans who have a concealed carry permit will now be issued another permit for open carry?  Is that a change in the law?

There is a change in the law to Iowa's Permit to Carry (not CCW permit). Effective Jan. 1st, 2011, Iowa transitions from a May Issue state, with Sheriff's having full autonomy over the permit system, to a Shall Issue state where there is one law for the land (Iowa), period. And the law isn't based on Sheriff discretion. ISSDA
has been on a media blitz to raise awareness because they want to move restrictions into place that they feel should be in place. Hence, the media, in an effort to fear-monger, is tripping over themselves to get information out in a relatively poor manner.
At any rate, to directly address the question, it is really, really poor journalism that you've discovered. There is not permit for a permit. Basically, as described previously, we simply go from May Issue to Shall Issue, and the only real major change to the law is that Sherrif's can not place restrictions on permits. Iowans have been able to Open Carry for decades, they've been able to drink alcohol while carrying for long as the Sheriff didn't restrict so on their individual permit. Under current law there are thousands of permits not restricted on these two items already.

Where are all the car comparisons when we need them? What could these people possibly be thinking?

What, in my opinion, had really paved the road for Shall Issue to pass were a few things:

1. Iowa Carry, and other pro-gun organizations in the past really got a head of steam rolling to change what was clearly a broken mess of 99 counties with 99 ways of permitting.
2. NRA started backing these organizations efforts.
3. In fairness, the Democrat majority leader in the Senate has historically been fairly pro-gun.
4. Democrats have been taking a lot of heat in recent years, as recent elections in Iowa have demonstrated. This was an opportunity for them to appeal to people on a conservative issue, and frankly it was the right thing to do which made it easy, Sheriff's shouldn't be allowed to individually permit people based on personal opinion. So, the only people Democrats would really irritate over this were two groups; a. A handful of Sheriff's and, b. A minority of anti-gun advocates that all vote straight-ticket Democrat anyway.

So, in summary, I don't think it is really anything to do with Iowa as it relates to other states, although it's a very fair observation that often states to somewhat mirror each other on legislation.

Just my take on it, as a Iowa Carry/Iowa Firearms Coalition member, volunteer.

Jeff Burkett
VP of Public Relations
Iowa Firearms Coalition

Serr8d on Guns and Alcohol

This is a diagram generously submitted by Serr8d. I'm not gonna even comment on it because if I say something serious like pointing out that the top two circles do not overlap and he comes back with the whole thing was a joke, I'll look pretty silly.

But, what do you think? Perhaps the maestro himself could explain, you know, to help those with a "fierce and tiny mind."

Please leave a comment.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Virginia is for Meat Lovers

Mike Licht has the sense of humor, that's for sure. But this?

Vegetarian hunters can donate venison to needy meat-eaters at local food banks.
Does such a thing exist? I can't think of two activities more mutually exclusive than vegetarianism and deer hunting. Can you?

Please leave a comment.

Proposition H in San Francisco (2005)

On another thread TS asked me this:

My question is to put yourself in San Francisco in 2005. Are you telling me you would have voted NO on the gun ban?
Wikipedia has the story about this fascinating situation.

To answer TS's question, I guess we first have to belabor still further the definition of "gun ban."   I wasn't following these things in 2005, but it sounds to me like this is a good example of the misuse of the word "ban."  Wouldn't "restrictions" be better, or even "severe restrictions?"

Those semantic issues aside, and assuming the brief description in Wikipedia is accurate, I would have voted YES on Proposition H in 2005.

What's that prove exactly?   Please leave a comment.

Suffolk, Virginia Gun Theft

I know we can only blame the thieves in cases like this, but isn't there some requirements on the part of the gun seller? Doesn't he have to provide security? Isn't something wrong when TWO breakins occur and only then he installs proper security?

Baltimore's Tougher Gun Laws

Do you think the gun crowd would support such measures? They are aimed at criminals and the pro-gun folks usually say that's were we need to focus. On the other hand, this is moving towards that one-strike-your-out plan of mine. This will affect legitimate gun owners too.

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake announced Wednesday that she will seek legislation that would enhance the penalties for illegal gun possession and make the crime a felony.
What's your opinion? Could this constitute the beginnings of a slippery slope? Next we'll have every minor gun infraction called a felony.

Please leave a comment.

Iowa Gun Laws

This article in the Chicago Tribune was not completely clear.  Does it mean all Iowans who have a concealed carry permit will now be issued another permit for open carry?  Is that a change in the law?

...starting in January permits will be issued for Iowans who have a legal gun permit to carry unconcealed weapons in public. 

Another statement about the law was completely clear about the gun-friendly mentality in Iowa.
Leaders in the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association said Wednesday a new state law also would allow Iowans to drink alcohol while carrying a handgun.
Where are all the car comparisons when we need them? What could these people possibly be thinking?

I've made my opinion about drinking gun owners clear on a number of occasions. But, being both practical and reasonable, I wouldn't expect everyone to live up to the strict standards I talk about. But to make it a part of the law is going too far. That's worse than blogging about it.

What's your opinion? Do you think Iowa is tired of being lost in the crowd of mediocre gun-friendly states and is vying for a higher position?

Please leave a comment.

One Tough Guy

If I ever become a billionaire politician or celebrity, I want this guy as a body guard.

Austin, Texas Murders Way Up

This is the beginning. This is what we call "blood in the streets." And, I'm afraid it's going to get worse before it gets better.

I couldn't care less about truth and falsity or causation and correlation, or all that other double talk the pro-gun crowd like so much.

I say there are too many guns out there and Austin Texas is one of the many examples.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Hear No Evil, Etc.,Etc.

An all too common tactic among gunloons is the Hear No Evil, See No Evil defense.

It works like this.  Suppose I say:
When NRA board members and others in leadership (note: I'm not even talking about the rank and file) engage in racist, misogynistic, and extremist rhetoric, we shouldn't take that as an indictment of its membership?

When the NRA and its leadership says we need assault weapons to overthrow the Government, what should we surmise?
The Hear No Evil defense is:
 Besides, I'm not sure what rhetoric you're talking about. I know that some of their views can be construed as extremist by some, but I'm unfamiliar with any comments made by NRA leadership that were racist or misogynistic.
Show me definitive factual proof that the NRA has called for armed rebellion against our lawfully elected leaders, otherwise you fail at constructing a factual argument yet again.
In order to believe the Hear No Evil Defense, one has to pretend the gunloon has never heard of Ted Nugent, Jeff Cooper, Robert K. Brown, and many others who hold--or have held-- leadership positions in the NRA.  We must believe that when the NRA endorses a candidate such as Sharron Angle who proposed using "Second Amendment remedies" on the US Congress that such remedies don't involve guns.  When the NRA endorses Allen West (R-FL). are we to assume that when his campaign talks of " if ballots don't work, bullets will"--that it's really not about armed rebellion.


And if I were a guitar player,
Lord, I'd have to play the blues.

No Charges in Accidental Shooting

via Ohh Shoot. Here's the link.

Police said the shot went through the wall and into the room next door. They said no one was hit because the guests in that room were out when it happened. The man, officers said fired the shot, is Leo Rusk, 69 of Greenville, SC. They do not plan to charge him.
I say one of the first things we have to do is start taking gun stupidity more seriously, and not only when someone is hurt or killed. The sad truth is even in those cases the gun owner is often not charged with anything.
One strike you're out is what we need to apply to stupid gun owners. One of the best ways to determine stupidity is the old "bullet in the chamber" test. If evidence arises that someone was unaware that there was a round in the chamber, bam, he forfeits gun rights forever.

Is that too extreme? I say too bad. Accidents, which represent a smaller percentage of gun violence than wilful misuse, are the most preventable. And this is a good prevention program.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Anybody Can Trip

Teenage boys doing a little target practice, nothing wrong with that.

"The Blade Was Visible"

When this story first came out some of us questioned if the shooting was necessary, and that was before the idea arose that the knife might not have been open.

The knife that John T. Williams was carrying when he was fatally shot by a Seattle police officer on Aug. 30 was folded in a closed position when it was recovered minutes after the shooting, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
I'm starting to think Fat White Man is right. We should just disarm the police and leave the rest of the gun owners alone. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Exonerated Murderer Denied Gun Purchase

via Laci we have this fascinating story. The guy's murder conviction was overturned and years later he's being denied a gun.

Let's say it's exactly what they say it is, a bureaucratic mess that wrongly prejudices this guy. I won't argue with those who say that's what it is, especially if he's lived a clean and productive life since his release from jail.

I say this is the price we pay for freedom.  There are always going to be some problems some abuses some mess-ups in any system.  But if we want proper gun control in order to keep as many guns out of the hands of dangerous people, this is the price we pay. And it's a small price to pay for the freedom of not having to worry so much about bad guys with guns.

You see, the "freedom" often bantered about by the gun-rights advocates is anything but. Those are guys who feel they need guns on their persons and in their homes just to survive.  That's not freedom. Freedom would be not having to have a gun and not having to worry about the other guy who has one - is he a good guy or a bad guy? 

The pro-gun notion of "freedom" is more about convenience to do what they want regardless of the consequences. The consequences of their "freedom" are a country that's awash in guns, a country in which there's, dare I say it, blood in the streets. Anyone who objectively reads the news knows this.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Rachel Maddow Explains How It Works

She's talking about the big stuff, but this is exactly how the gun-rights bloggers do. via Liberality

A New Favorite Site

I'd like to add to what Jadegold said the other day, The Foggy Bottom Line is a wonderful site.  I was especially convinced when I read the wonderful, but not comprehensive by a long shot, run down of some of the pro gun blogs we all know and love.

What's your opinion? Don't you find it interesting and refreshing to read someone's opinion of these blogs who's new to them, someone who has not yet become inured to the incessant barrage of insults and attacks?  I certainly do.

Weer’d Beard comes by the comment thread on this post just to say I’m full of shit without apparently reading my comment at Pandagon.   
That sounds like Weer'd doesn't it?

Bob S. makes a very good point about deleting comments but cannot resist the urge to infantilize and demean with epithets like “sparky” and “troll” when referring to those he disagrees with.  At least Bob makes effort to rebut a claim while he is being insulting.
That's Bob S. all right.

Please leave a comment.

Rick O'Shay's in Fort Wayne

More evidence of the stupidity of allowing guns in bars.

Jon Stewart and Rick Perry

Is Jon Stewart way more intelligent and well-spoken than Gov. Perry? What's your opinion?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Rick Perry Extended Interview
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorRally to Restore Sanity

Pentagon Stumped

Yahoo news:
The Pentagon said Tuesday it did not know what created a vapor trail that crossed the skies off the Southern California coast and resembled a missile launch.

Video posted on the CBS News website shows an object flying through the evening sky Monday that left a large contrail, or vapor trail.

Pentagon officials were stumped by the event. "Nobody within the Department of Defense that we've reached out to has been able to explain what this contrail is, where it came from," Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said.

While the vapor cloud captured on video resembled that created by a rocket in flight, military officials said they didn't know of any launches in the area.
It could have been a reverse meteorite. Unlike regular meteorites, which are far more frequent than legitimate DGUs, these reverse meteorites are rare indeed.

Of course the Pentagon doesn't know this. What do they know?

Ex-Marines Smuggling Guns

As a former marine myself, posting on the Marine Corps Birthday, it pains me to admit that these guys were doing some nickel-and-dime action compared to Navy SEAL Nicholas Bickle who brought guns in directly from Afghanistan, lots of guns.

But there you have it. Even the way the marines procured their weapons was nothing compared to the high drama of the SEAL operation.
In Gitschlag's case, investigators were still trying to determine where the guns came from, but several were purchased at gun shows in Arizona, ATF spokesman Chris Hoffman said.
What's your opinion? If these enterprising ex-marines were driving over to Arizona to by guns for resale to L.A. gangs, do you think others are doing it too?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

More Gunloonery

Geriatric Gunloonery Edition:
Police said they went to her house and found Bruce Gallick, Gallick’s husband, with a gunshot wound on his arm.

Police said Billie Dawn Gallick was asked numerous times to produce the weapon she used, and at one point gave them a toy gun. Police eventually found the gun, a .22 caliber revolver, in a closet on the first floor.
According to the report, Gallick told police her husband had a girlfriend, and that seemed to be the main reason the shooting occurred. Police also said they smelled alcohol on her.

Marcellus Wiley Doesn't Need a Gun

He explains why:

More, more, more," said Wiley, who grew up on the tough streets of Compton near Los Angeles to become an NFL multi-millionaire. That was when he started carrying a gun. "For my first two years, I would carry round a .380 pistol that was inside of a holster that looked like a wallet. I would go to night clubs, I would go to practice, I would go everywhere except road trips with this gun.

Why Jonny Carries

Our friend Linoge 'splains why he needs a gun:
At 165-170 pounds at 6’2?, I am a relatively skinny individual who could manage to bench press a bit more than my own weight when I was in perfect shape (or, at least, as perfect shape as I have ever been). However, when I was in that peak condition, I was spending upwards of an hour a day in a gym with men sometimes twice my mass, who were moving weights upwards of three to four times greater than I could even attempt – sure, these guys were Marines, but in this day of MMA, protein shakes, and whatever-the-hell else out there, muscle-bound monsters who can bench-press entire garages are no longer the circus side-show act they once were.

I must stifle a chuckle here. 330 pound Marines benching between 500-700 pounds? I think Linoge has been spending a bit too much time with the Xbox. There's more:

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Portland on the Cutting Edge of Gun Control

Mayor Sam Adams of Portland Oregon who also wears the hat of Police Commissioner, has some interesting gun control proposals.

The three new laws that he's proposing: A child safety law that would hold adults responsible if their gun gets into a child's hands, a theft reporting law that would penalize gun owners who don't report the theft or loss of a firearm; and an exclusion zone measure that would designate shooting hot spots in the city, and allow the city to exclude gun offenders who are on probation or under juvenile authority from entering a public area or park within the hot spot locations, unless they live in the area, go to school, obtain social services or travel through it.

The two other measures would amend city code: a special 7 p.m. curfew for juveniles who have been convicted of a gun offense, found to have possessed, purchased, used, transferred or transported a firearm unlawfully; and placing a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 days in jail for previous gun offenders found carrying a loaded gun in a public place, which includes a vehicle or on transit. This would not affect concealed-handgun license holders. Right now, the court has discretion to sentence a violator for up to six months in prison, and a fine up to $500, but it's rarely done. 
Some of this is apparently cutting edge stuff.

David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the exclusion zones for gun violence is unique. "There's lots of research and common sense that would say that would be worth trying," Kennedy said. "Ordinary folks do not shoot people with guns. Those who do, usually have prior convictions. So it's a very intriguing idea." 
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Bill Maher on the Rally

He makes some witty remarks on the difference between Left and Right.

Straw Purchasers Sentenced

This good news comes from Georgia.  But, it must be very difficult to gather the evidence and actually prove guilt in a case like this.  They should use my method, it would work a lot better.

Another Las Vegas Wal Mart Incident

All right, the other incident was in a Costco, but it's still Las Vegas, well actually Henderson, but there were guns, bad guys and in this case a hand grenade. What a town it's become.  What would Moe Green think.

Guns in Bars - Fort Wayne Style

A fight in a nightclub between two groups led to gunfire.

Yet, some people say allowing guns in bars is a good thing.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Worth Your While

Foggy Bottomline

I don't agree with everything but there's definitely some good thinking going on there.

A Fool and his Money are..

...well, you know the rest.
The NRA is fond about boasting how much clout they have in Congress. In reality, though, not so much:
Of the 49 Democratic incumbents who lost, 29 (59 percent) had an A rating from the NRA, says the Brady Campaign. and 25 (51 percent) received financial support from the NRA. The gun-control group said that two of the 101 Democratic House incumbents who co-sponsored legislation to close the gun show loophole lost. Brady president Paul Helmke argued that “appeasing the gun lobby had little political benefit.”

The Gunloon Paradox

Laws regulating firearms must be 100% perfect in preventing gun violence or they are all miserable failures. OTOH, it's perfectly acceptable to have thousands of deaths from murders, accidents, and suicides by gunloons.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Breda Pushing Alcohol and Guns

Alcohol and guns are about the worst combination imaginable.  What could possibly motivate a gun blogger to post about drinking alcohol?  Breda's done it, and she's not the first that I've seen and I'm sure she won't be the last.

I don't want to exaggerate the offense, describing it in the strongest language I can muster.  That's what the pro-gun crowd likes to do.  I'll just say it's shabby and irresponsible. Shame on you Breda, and shame on all your fanboys who support you in this. I'd bet not one of them would have the balls or the honesty to take you to task for this.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Die Hard - Bruce Willis

I like a movie with lots of shootin', but when it's also got thrills and humor, I love it.  When's the last time you saw this great one?  Remember when the L.A. cop in charge said, "Well, I guess we need some more FBI guys?"

The Philosophical Substrata for Gun Ownership

via Sebastian to whom I commented "Please tell me you posted this guy to show how silly he is."

At the 2 minute mark he makes this incredible declaration: "America suffers an appalling number of handgun-related deaths each year, perhaps 11,000 of them."  That, combined with his suggesting in the very beginning that gun control folks are somehow akin to Hitler and Stalin, puts him at the extreme end of the spectrum marked mentally ill, delusional or paranoid. Folks like that cannot be held responsible for such blatant lies as that 11,000 whopper.

What's your opinion?  Which way do you think Sebastian will fall, on the side of defending or the side of denouncing?

Please leave a comment.

Bloodshed in Oakland

The count was 3 dead and 1 wounded. You know what the pro-gun response is, almost like a reflex action, they say, "how could that happen in California with such strict gun control?

Well this sarcastic and unthinking response is one of the many the so-called gun-rights activists like to repeat over and over again until some type of value seems to attach itself to the remark.  

The true purpose of repeating such inanities is to divert attention from the real issue, which is the question, where do these guns come from.  The answer is they come from lawful gun owners. In every case, tracing the gun back from the murderer's hand to the manufacturer, there is a crucial point in which it passed from the good guys to the bad guys.

I hold those last legitimate gun owners responsible.  I hold all the rest of the gun owners who support this system responsible. And I support stricter controls on gun owners which would make this kind of gun flow very very diffucult.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Why Bob S. Won't Allow My Comments - As Told to Zorro


MikeB302000's comment is visible on his site since he knew I wouldn't post it here. 

I won't post MikeB302000's comments until he talks about his ownership, both legally and illegally, of firearms. I want him to use his right of free speech to answer the questions he's demanded of us over the years.

Mostly it was a claim that the antis don't say Lie #1.

Of course, his words betray him, as they usually do.

Unless a person lives in a particularly bad area, or unless his work makes him a target for violence, he does not need a gun

Doesn't that sound awfully like "crime doesn't happen in good neighborhoods" so you don't need a firearm?
Bob's attitude which comes through loud and clear in this unsolicited explanation to Zorro, sounds like the antithesis of mature, reasonable discussion. It sounds laughably petty and continues to fail in the honesty department. Maybe Bob should touch base with Joe Huffman for some help with that old "truth from falsity" thing.

When Bob says, "I want him to use his right of free speech to answer the questions he's demanded of us over the years," he's being a bit misleading. Generally I talk about current events and behaviour. On the few occasions that past gun history has come up, I may have asked but never was there the least bit of coercion to tell all. Especially when it comes to personal details, I respect people's right to keep what they want private.

When Bob quoted me saying, "Unless a person lives in a particularly bad area, or unless his work makes him a target for violence, he does not need a gun," as an indicator that I believe no crime happens in good neighborhoods, he was either missing an obvious difference or flat-out lying. The comment of mine which he refused to post but which I did made a clarification of the fact that I never said no crime ever happens in good neighborhoods. This quote of mine does not betray me at all. When I say living in a good neighborhood means you don't need a gun it's not the same as "crime never happens there,"  It's the old cost / benefit ratio I'm talking about, and I suspect Bob knows this very well.

In the past, I have likened Bob's need for a gun to protect himself or his family to the possibility of being struck by a meteorite. He didn't like that because, although an obvious exaggeration, it does point to the wrong decision he's made with regards to guns. Out of fear and insecurity, he's actually endangered his family and himself, not made them safer. This is a hard reality to even consider, denial comes up, and vicious attacks go out to whoever dares suggest such a thing.

The reason I care what Bob does, is not because I'm personally interested in his and his family's welfare, that would be a lie, it's because when you multiply Bob's case by a million or by 10 million, we've got some serious problems.  If it weren't for these guys, guns flowing into the criminal world would all but dry up.  If it weren't for them gun accidents in the home and spur-of-the moment shootings would diminish.  If it weren't for these guys, we wouldn't be reading every single day about kids bringing daddy's gun to school.

What they call freedom is the exact opposite.  They're slaves to the gun and so are we.

What's your opinion?

Please leave a comment.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

How Gunloons Think

Here we have the "American Mercenary" with a note to Paul Helmke:
NRA members outnumber "gun violence victims"
In a DEMOCRACY that means that NRA members get their way.
Sucks to be on the losing team, doesn't it?

What the "American Mercenary" means by this is unclear. What is clear, however, is that AM believes he has discovered the way to compare apples and oranges.

What is AM thinking?
Only non-NRA members are gun violence victims
When someone becomes a gun violence victim-nobody else is affected
All NRA members think alike
AM is retarded
All of the above free polls

20,000 Gun Laws

Dedicated to AM, who comments over at japete's blog and just loves the old 20,000 line.

Suicide Gun

That's disgraceful making a joke of such a thing. I thought it would be good for general use but if you want to kill your girlfriend first you'll need a normal gun too.

Pilot's Gun Lost

After 9/11 there was a big push to arm the pilots. Like everything else with guns there's a downside. The question is does that downside outweigh the upside. Do incidents like this and all the other acts of misuse of pilots' guns outweigh all the problems they've prevented or stopped?

Both parts of the equation are unknown to us.  Take the gun in today's story for example, we'll probably never know what happens with it and how much damage, or good, people end up doing with it.  Same goes for the prevented hijackings, the deadly incidents that just don't take place.

It's a fairly clear choice for me, and not because I've already made up my mind about guns.  I'm thinking if you arm professional pilots, or any other group for that matter, you're going to have problems.  The 10% theory will kick in, the depressed ones, the alcoholics and prescription pill addicts, the wife beaters, and the other problem types among them will now be armed.  The stakes will go up, the damage will increase.

The benefit of preventing attempted hijackings can be accomplished in other ways. This does not depend on armed pilots.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment. 

Kansas Shooting Death Called Accidental

Three young men, a handgun, a bullet in the eye, these are the elements of the story.  The two survivors were released by the police.  The dead boy was 18.

What went wrong? Of course some of us think a big part of the problem is the too easy access to guns.  But beyond that, there's the question of a presumed lack of training and education.  These things do happen to people who are trained and educated in firearms, but they'd be much less likely. I'll bet that's a common-sense deduction the pro-gun crowd would allow.

So, what went wrong was a combination of access to the gun and lack of training and education. Can we agree on that?

But what about this?  Some people are just too stupid or reckless or arrogant to benefit from the training and education.  In fact, the very people who need it most are the same ones who, if they even bothered, would not learn the needed lessons.  So, although I don't oppose training and education, I reject it as a solution for gun accidents.

Our only hope is the keep guns out of the wrong hands.  What's your opinion?

Please leave a comment.