Monday, July 9, 2012
Politicians v. Leaders
Politicans are concerned with the next election whereas leaders are concerned for the next generations.
Hug Causes Off-Duty Cop's Gun to Fire, Killing Woman
Anyone still want to talk about how guns don't kill people? How about those of you who want to tell us how safe it is for people to carry firearms - that there isn't a significant risk to the rest of us that outweighs the fact you don't NEED to carry, you just get jazzed about the idea of having lethal force with you?
THIS is precisely why people like the example Laci provided do not want gun nuts who are carrying - open or concealed - on their property. Period.
It doesn't matter how convinced you are that you don't present a danger to us all. You DO present dangers to us, clearly. You have accidents. You do stupid things; the stupidity escalates exponentially when alcohol is involved. Or competition, particularly for something ego-related. You aren't NEARLY as safe as you claim you are. Your judgment is not superior to anyone else's - therefore your judgment is too damned flawed to be making lethal decisions for or about other people.
And there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that you make anyone safer - not us, not yourselves - or that you do shit about reducing crime.
All you do is make a lot of money for the gun manufacturers who own the NRA - not just regular green money, but bloody, dirty money stained with the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of Americans, and even more people outside our borders - like Mexico.
From Michigan WOOD Ch.8:
DETROIT, Mich. (WOOD) - A woman celebrating the weekend before her 25th birthday was fatally shot Sunday when she hugged an off-duty police officer while dancing at a party, causing the officer's service weapon to fire, according to police and her mother.
Adaisha Miller would have turned 25 on Monday, according to her mother, Yolanda McNair.
The shooting happened at an outdoor social gathering about 12:30 a.m., said police Sgt. Eren Stephens. It happened on the city's west side.
According to Stephens, the woman "embraced the officer from behind, causing the holstered weapon to accidently discharge." The bullet punctured Miller's lung and hit her heart, and she died at a hospital.
Stephens said the Detroit officer will remain on administrative duties while authorities investigate the shooting and report their findings to the Wayne County prosecutor. The officer's name was not released.
"For this to happen to her, whether they want to call it freak accident or mistake in judgment, it should have never happened to my child, and there's nothing I can do to get her back," McNair told WDIV-TV.
McNair said her daughter was out to mark her upcoming birthday.
"All she wanted to do was enjoy the weekend for her birthday," the mother said. "She had every right to enjoy turning 25 and look beyond that."
THIS is precisely why people like the example Laci provided do not want gun nuts who are carrying - open or concealed - on their property. Period.
It doesn't matter how convinced you are that you don't present a danger to us all. You DO present dangers to us, clearly. You have accidents. You do stupid things; the stupidity escalates exponentially when alcohol is involved. Or competition, particularly for something ego-related. You aren't NEARLY as safe as you claim you are. Your judgment is not superior to anyone else's - therefore your judgment is too damned flawed to be making lethal decisions for or about other people.
And there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that you make anyone safer - not us, not yourselves - or that you do shit about reducing crime.
All you do is make a lot of money for the gun manufacturers who own the NRA - not just regular green money, but bloody, dirty money stained with the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of Americans, and even more people outside our borders - like Mexico.
From Michigan WOOD Ch.8:
Woman dies during hug with officer
Detroit Police: Hug triggered officer's gun
Updated: Sunday, 08 Jul 2012, 8:13 PM EDT
Published : Sunday, 08 Jul 2012, 6:39 PM EDT
Published : Sunday, 08 Jul 2012, 6:39 PM EDT
DETROIT, Mich. (WOOD) - A woman celebrating the weekend before her 25th birthday was fatally shot Sunday when she hugged an off-duty police officer while dancing at a party, causing the officer's service weapon to fire, according to police and her mother.
Adaisha Miller would have turned 25 on Monday, according to her mother, Yolanda McNair.
The shooting happened at an outdoor social gathering about 12:30 a.m., said police Sgt. Eren Stephens. It happened on the city's west side.
According to Stephens, the woman "embraced the officer from behind, causing the holstered weapon to accidently discharge." The bullet punctured Miller's lung and hit her heart, and she died at a hospital.
Stephens said the Detroit officer will remain on administrative duties while authorities investigate the shooting and report their findings to the Wayne County prosecutor. The officer's name was not released.
"For this to happen to her, whether they want to call it freak accident or mistake in judgment, it should have never happened to my child, and there's nothing I can do to get her back," McNair told WDIV-TV.
McNair said her daughter was out to mark her upcoming birthday.
"All she wanted to do was enjoy the weekend for her birthday," the mother said. "She had every right to enjoy turning 25 and look beyond that."
An armed society is a polite society?? ?
In case you missed it, the Afghans are armed to the teeth--Is this the direction that the US is heading?
What happened?
I wish that I had bookmarked in a book I have on Scottish Firearms where it said that concealed weapons were considered for sneaks and assassins. Unfortunately, I don't have a cite for that which means it will remain anecdotal. Although, Adam Winkler mentions in his book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man." Robertson vs. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) pointed out that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons."
Amusingly enough, the discretionary concealed carry statutes which have been abolished had been proposed by the Handgun Owners Association and other firearms related groups.
But times have changed and the gun lobby now frequently suggests that carrying a concealed handgun in public is a constitutional "right." However, the Supreme Court was clear on this issue in District of Columbia v. Heller. "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
Despite a long history against carrying concealed weapons, it is now being said that it is a right which is covered by the Second Amendment--even though the Heller-McDonald cases have made it clear that this is not the case.
We have already seen an Amendment which relates to the nature of the national defence establishment being subjected to a revisionist history which has taken it out of the context of standing armies v. militias and placed into an anachronistic concept of "gun rights". Not, it is being taken even further to promote an idea which history is very clear in saying would not be covered as a right under any circumstances.
What is going on?
Amusingly enough, the discretionary concealed carry statutes which have been abolished had been proposed by the Handgun Owners Association and other firearms related groups.
But times have changed and the gun lobby now frequently suggests that carrying a concealed handgun in public is a constitutional "right." However, the Supreme Court was clear on this issue in District of Columbia v. Heller. "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
Despite a long history against carrying concealed weapons, it is now being said that it is a right which is covered by the Second Amendment--even though the Heller-McDonald cases have made it clear that this is not the case.
We have already seen an Amendment which relates to the nature of the national defence establishment being subjected to a revisionist history which has taken it out of the context of standing armies v. militias and placed into an anachronistic concept of "gun rights". Not, it is being taken even further to promote an idea which history is very clear in saying would not be covered as a right under any circumstances.
What is going on?
Sunday, July 8, 2012
The return of the armed guest!
Gentle Readers,
We last broached this topic when a dinner guest decided to make his opinions known about the Second Amendment by brandishing a pistol.
Unfortunately, it appears that the fact that alcohol was involved in the previous incident was left unsaid,but should have been mentioned. That appears to be an important consideration when one decides whether it is proper to "carry" or not. Most people who carry give far greater weight to whether there will be alcohol served than whether the host would prefer that there were no weapons on the property as a factor in whether to "carry" or not.
To resume the topic, despite the poor reception at the previous occasion, the guest once again arrived armed. It was obvious that he was carrying as he was "printing". The hostess asked him if he was carrying and asked the guest to put the firearm away. To which the guest became indignant at being asked to "disarm". The guest left early.
After the guest left, the fact that he had been carrying came up with the consensus being that the guest was out of line in bringing the firearm for several reasons. Two people who also carried arms pointed out that there was alcohol being served and the guest showed bad judgment. Another guest was a law professor and pointed out that the hostess was well within her rights to ask the guest to leave.
I should add that some states require that the property owner is notified that one is carrying a concealed weapon (e.g., South Carolina, Arkansas, and Louisiana). Also, the Heller-McDonald decisions made it clear that:
Additionally, whether or not you support the right to carry, does that excuse the guest's poor judgement in carrying to an event where there was alcohol being served? Furthermore, the guest wasn't "concealed" by the definition used by most of those who defend this practise.
I should add that these were far from being squeamish "hoplophobes" as the hostesses' husband is a retired army officer. Additionally, there were two gun owners who carry concealed weapons for their work who disapproved of the guest under discussion. The gun carrying guest in this incident does not carrry for work-related activities.
For those who follow such things, etiquette experts are quite clear that weapons of any kind - guns, knives, tasers or stun guns, or pepper spray, are not appropriate items to bring to a social event as a guest. Clearly, the guest knew from the prior event that his firearm was unwelcome, yet he insisted on repeating his unwelcome conduct.
At issue are not only the preferences of the host and hostess, the feelings of the other guests, but also the responsibility and potential liability of the home owners for any bad outcomes or incidents. While the guest represents that he was a legal gun carrier, that is in this instance a matter on the honor system, as the homeowners in this incident have no means of verifying if this is correct or not.
This tends to suggest that the gun culture is inherently rude and uncivilized and certainly ill-mannered where the assumption is that they have the right to intrude their firearms on everyone else, regardless of the expressed preference of the host and hostess. There is a fundamental disrespect in that action on the part of the gun carrier that is echoed in all of the many comments we have witnessed here where people have indicated their determination to conceal carry in locations both public and/or private, in disregard for posted notices prohibiting them from doing so.
We last broached this topic when a dinner guest decided to make his opinions known about the Second Amendment by brandishing a pistol.
Unfortunately, it appears that the fact that alcohol was involved in the previous incident was left unsaid,but should have been mentioned. That appears to be an important consideration when one decides whether it is proper to "carry" or not. Most people who carry give far greater weight to whether there will be alcohol served than whether the host would prefer that there were no weapons on the property as a factor in whether to "carry" or not.
To resume the topic, despite the poor reception at the previous occasion, the guest once again arrived armed. It was obvious that he was carrying as he was "printing". The hostess asked him if he was carrying and asked the guest to put the firearm away. To which the guest became indignant at being asked to "disarm". The guest left early.
After the guest left, the fact that he had been carrying came up with the consensus being that the guest was out of line in bringing the firearm for several reasons. Two people who also carried arms pointed out that there was alcohol being served and the guest showed bad judgment. Another guest was a law professor and pointed out that the hostess was well within her rights to ask the guest to leave.
I should add that some states require that the property owner is notified that one is carrying a concealed weapon (e.g., South Carolina, Arkansas, and Louisiana). Also, the Heller-McDonald decisions made it clear that:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).I am not sure of the meaning of this incident since it seriously calls into question the judgement of some who feel the need to carry weapons. The Second Amendment right pronounced by Heller-McDonald is not one that allows for one to "carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".
Additionally, whether or not you support the right to carry, does that excuse the guest's poor judgement in carrying to an event where there was alcohol being served? Furthermore, the guest wasn't "concealed" by the definition used by most of those who defend this practise.
I should add that these were far from being squeamish "hoplophobes" as the hostesses' husband is a retired army officer. Additionally, there were two gun owners who carry concealed weapons for their work who disapproved of the guest under discussion. The gun carrying guest in this incident does not carrry for work-related activities.
For those who follow such things, etiquette experts are quite clear that weapons of any kind - guns, knives, tasers or stun guns, or pepper spray, are not appropriate items to bring to a social event as a guest. Clearly, the guest knew from the prior event that his firearm was unwelcome, yet he insisted on repeating his unwelcome conduct.
At issue are not only the preferences of the host and hostess, the feelings of the other guests, but also the responsibility and potential liability of the home owners for any bad outcomes or incidents. While the guest represents that he was a legal gun carrier, that is in this instance a matter on the honor system, as the homeowners in this incident have no means of verifying if this is correct or not.
This tends to suggest that the gun culture is inherently rude and uncivilized and certainly ill-mannered where the assumption is that they have the right to intrude their firearms on everyone else, regardless of the expressed preference of the host and hostess. There is a fundamental disrespect in that action on the part of the gun carrier that is echoed in all of the many comments we have witnessed here where people have indicated their determination to conceal carry in locations both public and/or private, in disregard for posted notices prohibiting them from doing so.
Misquoting Yamamoto
It's fun how the gunloon lives in a world of alternative history.
Perhaps the most often used bogus quote is attributed to Adolf Hitler. Usually, the questionable passage reads as follows:
While the above 'quote' makes a nice T-shirt, there are numerous problems with this alleged statement. (1) It violates the rule of not beginning a sentence with a number. (2) It isn’t phrased in Hitler’s style. (3) Major changes to the German gun laws occurred in 1928 and 1931 (under the Weimar Republic) and in 1938 (under the Nazi’s). No significant changes happened in the gun registration laws in 1935. Furthermore, the changes in 1928 and 1931 were designed to disarm the Nazis and Communists and therefore it is doubtful that Hitler would trumpet the success of any law aimed at his goon squads.
Unfortunately, the major problem is that the first "civilized nation" that required anyone wanting to purchase or own a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate was Great Britain with 1920 Firearms Act. Strangely enough, there hasn't been a genocide in the UK.
Likewise, advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
FactCheck.org looked into this quotation and determined that:
Perhaps the most often used bogus quote is attributed to Adolf Hitler. Usually, the questionable passage reads as follows:
1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!Note: This passage sometimes features different punctuation and slight wording changes including a beginning of, ‘For the first time in history, a....’ Various citations include: Adolf Hitler, April 15, 1935, in address to the Reichstag; Adolf Hitler 1935 'Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation) April 15th, 1935 Page 3 Article 2 by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann -"Abschied vom Hessenland!". "Adolf" is sometimes misspelled as ‘Adolph’ on the Internet.
While the above 'quote' makes a nice T-shirt, there are numerous problems with this alleged statement. (1) It violates the rule of not beginning a sentence with a number. (2) It isn’t phrased in Hitler’s style. (3) Major changes to the German gun laws occurred in 1928 and 1931 (under the Weimar Republic) and in 1938 (under the Nazi’s). No significant changes happened in the gun registration laws in 1935. Furthermore, the changes in 1928 and 1931 were designed to disarm the Nazis and Communists and therefore it is doubtful that Hitler would trumpet the success of any law aimed at his goon squads.
Unfortunately, the major problem is that the first "civilized nation" that required anyone wanting to purchase or own a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate was Great Britain with 1920 Firearms Act. Strangely enough, there hasn't been a genocide in the UK.
Likewise, advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
FactCheck.org looked into this quotation and determined that:
this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.According to Wikiquote, the blade of grass quote is one of two incorrectly attribute to Admiral Yamamoto.
3 year old son of LEO shot at home.
Every state should require that firearms not in use be securely stored in locked gun safes, with locked trigger guards, and unloaded.
I can already here the screams of protest from those who believe that a gun on the night stand next to their bed is under their control while they are asleep. I can already here the screams of protest from those who believe they won't be able to shoot all those not-fully-human bad guys that are breaking into their homes - ANY MINUTE NOW.
The reality is that the number of gun owners who ever shoot a bad guy is miniscule compared to the number of shootings like these, and in those cases equivalent or better alternatives to shooting anyone are often available.
EVERY state should require that every gun be kept securely away from children, and be secured so that is CANNOT be fired by one. One more example of guns don't kill people, people with guns who make stupid, irresponsible decisions about those guns kill people.
I wonder how long it will be before we hear that these kids were taught about firearms, and that this is a man who was always safe and in control of his weapon......except when he wasn't.
My heart goes out to this family, including the cop, for his loss; but at some point we need to be caring for the kid who lost his life to avoidable circumstances because of our gun culture. It should be noted in those countries with more restrictive gun laws, many police do NOT routinely carry firearms on the job, or keep them in their homes. It should also be noted that in weighing the benefits of firearms in the hands of police in their homes there is a significantly higher incidence of domestic violence and threat of violence, many of those instances involving firearms, either their professional weapon, or private weapons. So kids or mostly women being victims of those weapons is not exactly a surprise. I'm not suggesting this was domestic abuse, only that it is an additional side effect that where there are firearms, women and children are often the victims, or the gun owner in the cases of suicide. Guns do more harm than good in many, many instances.
In this instance, thank God that no other children or adults died, or were wounded -- at least physically wounded. It can be argued a lot of people there were psychologically and emotionally traumatized by this event.
from MSNBC.com:For more, visit NBCBayArea.com
I can already here the screams of protest from those who believe that a gun on the night stand next to their bed is under their control while they are asleep. I can already here the screams of protest from those who believe they won't be able to shoot all those not-fully-human bad guys that are breaking into their homes - ANY MINUTE NOW.
The reality is that the number of gun owners who ever shoot a bad guy is miniscule compared to the number of shootings like these, and in those cases equivalent or better alternatives to shooting anyone are often available.
EVERY state should require that every gun be kept securely away from children, and be secured so that is CANNOT be fired by one. One more example of guns don't kill people, people with guns who make stupid, irresponsible decisions about those guns kill people.
I wonder how long it will be before we hear that these kids were taught about firearms, and that this is a man who was always safe and in control of his weapon......except when he wasn't.
My heart goes out to this family, including the cop, for his loss; but at some point we need to be caring for the kid who lost his life to avoidable circumstances because of our gun culture. It should be noted in those countries with more restrictive gun laws, many police do NOT routinely carry firearms on the job, or keep them in their homes. It should also be noted that in weighing the benefits of firearms in the hands of police in their homes there is a significantly higher incidence of domestic violence and threat of violence, many of those instances involving firearms, either their professional weapon, or private weapons. So kids or mostly women being victims of those weapons is not exactly a surprise. I'm not suggesting this was domestic abuse, only that it is an additional side effect that where there are firearms, women and children are often the victims, or the gun owner in the cases of suicide. Guns do more harm than good in many, many instances.
In this instance, thank God that no other children or adults died, or were wounded -- at least physically wounded. It can be argued a lot of people there were psychologically and emotionally traumatized by this event.
from MSNBC.com:
Cop's 3-year-old son shot at home with handgun
In what police describe as a tragic accident, the 3-year-old son of a San Jose, Calif., police officer was shot and killed Wednesday evening at his home in Gilroy. The boy's death from his wounds was confirmed late Thursday.
The Gilroy Dispatch newspaper reported that three other children were inside the home at the time of the incident, indicating this might have happened during a play date.
Police won't say who pulled the trigger of the handgun, but reports say the boy either shot himself or another child accidentally fired the gun. "Unfortunately, emergency personnel were unable to save the boy and he was pronounced deceased while en route to a local hospital," Gilroy Sgt. Chad Gallacinao said in a statement.
He added that the investigation will focus on how the gun was stored inside the house and why a child was able to get their hands on it.
It is not known if the gun was the father's police-issued firearm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)