Skip to main content

Bone receives probation in child shooting case:

Local Fox news reports


A Green Bay father whose son shot his sister after he left the two home alone was sentenced Friday.

    Bone will have a year of probation and serve 200 hours of community service.

    Authorities say Bone showed his children where the gun was for emergencies.

While home alone the 11-year-old boy got the gun because he thought someone was breaking in. The little sister got shot accidentally and, no thanks to the super-responsible dad, survived. She was lucky, to say the least.

But wait till you hear the judge's pronouncement.


Judge McKay also ordered Bone to stay away from drugs, alcohol and guns during his probation.

I suppose what that really means is AFTER his probation he still has to stay away from drugs.

What's your opinion? Hasn't David Bone demonstrated sufficiently that he's incapable of owning guns safely?  What kind of gun owner tells the kids where the gun is, just in case?

Let me answer that.

Many of our favorite gun-rights advocates are like that. They've taught their young children how to handle guns, They themselves boast of having been indoctrinated young and they turned out OK. They live in a fantasy world of ever-impending attack, hell, it would be irresponsible NOT to tell the kids where the gun is.

How much you wanna bet that Judge J.D. McKay is a gun lover and a 2A supporter? Who else would even consider letting a guy like Bone own guns again in the future.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Tampa Bay Online reports how it was all Iraq's fault, or maybe it was all the VA's fault.


 A Hillsborough County sheriff's deputy was in good condition Saturday after she was shot three times the previous night by an ex-Marine who then barricaded himself inside an apartment, authorities said.

    The former Marine accused of shooting a Hillsborough County deputy three times Friday night had post-traumatic stress disorder upon his return from Iraq, his uncle said Saturday.

    "I know he had been going to the VA hospital quite a bit, and they'd been putting him off, putting him off," Bob Buendia said of his nephew, 24-year-old Matthew Lane Buendia of Carrollwood. "He'd been getting frustrated."

I'm the first one to talk about shared responsibility, but I can also recognize an angry young man who can't help but brutalize his girlfriend and shoot the cop who tries to intervene, a cop who happens to be female too.


On Friday night, Buendia and his live-in girlfriend, Jessica Gipson, 28, got into a fight at their apartment at Inwood Park Apartments, 4747 W. Waters Ave., according to sheriff's officials. Buendia struck her; when she tried to get away, he tackled her from behind, records say.

    He then punched her in the head and slammed her head on the ground, the records say. When she managed to pull free, he picked her up by the throat, choking her, but she managed to get away and tried calling 911, they say. Buendia slapped the phone out of her hand.

I've know tough ex-Marines like this, perhaps you have too. They all suffer from PTSD after they're caught doing something stupid. But before that they have enough on the ball to pick their fights carefully. They don't let their rage get the best of them with other men bigger and tougher then they are, the local karate instructor, or the hulk-like biker who hangs on the corner. No, their anger, which seems uncontrollable, is often very controlled and directed to the girlfriend or the unsuspecting cop.

By the way, did anyone check to see if he'd been the legal owner of that gun, or, god-forbid, that he'd had a concealed carry licence? No, I don't think anyone did, which serves the gun-rights movement just fine. We certainly wouldn't want an accurate accounting of how many of those guys are losing it.

What's your opinion? I think the girlfriend is lucky to be alive. Many others in her position are not.

Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


As we've mentioned before Aurora Colorado is about the worst place in the country to be a criminal. reports that due to all the police shootings this year, the cops are going to get special mandatory training.


 Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates has ordered each of the city's officers to attend specialized training after the city's eighth officer-involved shooting of the year occurred early Thursday.

    In a letter Friday to all officers, Oates noted the "disproportionately high number of officer-involved shootings" this year and the wounding of two officers by gunfire. Taken together, he said, it convinces him that it is time for the force to review officer safety techniques and the proper time to use deadly force.

I was thinking maybe the cops will get a two-week intensive course at some Parris-Island type facility. My suggestion in the as-we've-mentioned-before link was a bit too much I realize.


About the training, I say every work day, one hour. Some of that can be practicing techniques like someone said above and some of it can be actual shooting.

   Just like anyone else who wants to carry a gun, they need to be practiced and qualified, even more so since, as cops, that’s their job.

But what are they planning in Aurora?


The department has a new high-tech simulator to practice scenarios in which deadly or nondeadly force may come into play, and Oates said he is eager to give the simulator a full workout.

    The training program will also cover "de-escalation skills," including tactical retreat, and it will stress the use of nonlethal force.

    "We really like the idea of a whole day devoted to this kind of stuff,"

A WHOLE DAY! Is that a riot, or what? Some of the most trigger-happy cops in America are going to get a whole day of training to learn restraint and de-escalation techinques.

My opinion is this is pitifully inadequate. The training should be far more than that. The savings on one or two avoided unnecessary shootings would more than make up for the cost. I mention that because obviously the loss of human life doesn't seem to motivate.

What's your opinion? Do the cops have inadequate training now? Do you think a one-day program is sufficient to effect change and result in improvement?

Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

Discuss reports what to me seem like very conservative numbers when calculating the cost of gun violence.


In an attempt to calculate the total costs associated with fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries, researchers considered costs associated with criminal proceedings, lost productivity, medical care, and suffering and decreased quality of life experienced by victims.

    Each non-fatal gun injury was found to cost society around $46,000 and fatal injuries cost an estimated $6.4 million, according to the report.

    "Using these parameters, the cost of the 36 fatal and 133 non-fatal firearm injuries to youth in San Mateo County from 2005 to 2009 will total $234 million over time," the report said.

That's impressive enough, especially when you multiply it with the national figure. Then you're talking more than $5 billion per year.

But, doesn't the figure used seem a bit on the low side. I find it hard to believe that calculating the effect on family and considering the loss of future earnings, in addition to the immediate and more obvious costs like emergency room services and in many cases surgical operations, I find it hard to believe the $46,000 average would cover it.

Laci once provided us with what seems to me a more realistic calculation.


They also state that when lost productivity, lost quality of life, and pain and suffering are added to medical costs, estimates of the annual cost of firearm violence range from $20 billion to $100 billion. According to the National Center for Disease Control, the cost of firearm fatalities is the highest of any injury-related death. In fact, the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total over $300,000 for each occurrence.

My calculations bring us in at about $30 billion, and that's year in and year out. What's your opinion? Are these staggering numbers enough to get the attention of people? Maybe the 30,000 deaths a year has become nothing more than a statistic, like Stalin said. People may have become inured to this, as terrible as it is. Perhaps they need to think about the cost, given the economic mess the country is in, maybe this is the way to get through.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Local news reports

Council vote overrides mayor's gun ban:

The comments are priceless, and speak very well for the gun-rights movement.


  If he fears for his life perhaps he too should carry a gun. If there is any dispute, they can take it to the streets. Or maybe he's afraid he cannot out draw his enemies and hopes to disarm them before they enter the building. Foolish trying to prevent a gunfight.

This poor mayor is just like me trying to sell sensible gun control ideas on The Democratic Underground diaries.

What's your opinion? Is this another minor victory for the gun-rights movement? Are they trying to win this battle by a type of Chinese Water Torture? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 10:45 PM PDT

Two Minor Victories for the NRA

by mikeb302000

During Obama's first term, with no resistance from the administration in the White House in spite of all the dramatic predictions, and a sympathetic Supreme Court, the gun-rights folks have been hard-pressed to make much progress.  Earlier they had that little victory with the National Parks and then the Amtrak thing.  But, it seems odd they haven't accomplished more.

Now they're chalking up two more practically insignificant victories.

Guns on campus in Oregon.


People licensed to carry concealed weapons can’t be barred from bringing guns onto university campuses, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals strikes down a state administrative rule that prohibited carrying guns on property owned or controlled by the Oregon University System.

Guns in bars in Ohio.


As you sit in your favorite tavern, devouring hot chicken wings and downing cold beer, could the person next to you be packing heat - legally?

    Yes, starting Friday, when Ohio's revised concealed-carry law takes effect.

"Few if any" problems are anticipated. I imagine that's true, also in Oregon. But that's the problem right there. Those few problems that will occur, need not. They are totally avoidable.

Part of the pro-gun argument rests on the false presumption that the armed people in Ohio bars and on Oregon campuses will prevent violence or intervene in dangerous situations and actually save lives. But, this doesn't seem to be the case. Even staunch gun-rights advocates admit it's very unlikely they'll ever be in exactly the right position in exactly the right moment to intervene. Violence happens too randomly and too quickly for them to help.

So what we're left with are the "few if any" problems. No gun-control people are predicting "blood in the streets" over this, but neither can the pro-gun crowd claim major victories.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Written by Mikeb and first posted on The Truth About Guns.

In my little town about 30 miles outside of Rome there was a carnival. They were celebrating the patron saint or some political holiday, but it was just like what you have in the States. There were kiosks with ring-toss games, dart throwing, a merry-go-round, bumper cars, all the usual. I was walking through the place holding my 7-year-old boy’s hand when we looked to the left and both of us saw the shooting gallery. Alessio practically let out a yelp for joy, pulling me by the hand in that direction . . .

I considered the next move on my part. Pulling him away from the evil guns might make them even more attractive, although that seemed unlikely given the level of his enthusiasm. Now, a little background is that he’d had almost no exposure to toy guns and none at all to real guns.I never prohibited them in our house but we never bought any either. Some of his little friends have surely had them and he’s seen some on TV, although he’s not too into that, so the exposure was about as minimal as it could be. For a kid with so little experience with guns to be as excited as he was to get his hands on one, shocked me a little or more than a little.

As we approached the booth, I saw a rifle on one side and a handgun, like a 9mm on the other. They were attached to something with cables. They were both very realistic looking, as it turned out, airsoft guns with the CO-2 cartridge that shoot those yellow plastic pellets a little bigger than a BB. At least that’s what I figured they were.

Alessio unhesitatingly picked up the handgun, immediately putting his finger on the trigger. I’m laughing right now recalling my reaction. I wondered, where in the hell did he learn that from, is it innate?

I quickly took control of the gun which he had pulled back close to his chest aiming at the ceiling at about a 45 degree angle. I thought, kind-of laughing to myself at the absurdity of it, OK now is the moment to teach him some gun safety. I’m flexible, right?

I showed him how to take his finger off the trigger and extend it along the gun outside the trigger guard, and I told him never point the gun at anything but the target. I repeated those two points, released my grip on the gun and told him to go ahead.

He fired three or four shots holding the gun back almost to his chest when I said wait a minute and physically extended his arm for him. I placed his left hand on the gun to steady it and told him to continue. From there he hit the targets, soda cans they were, with almost every pellet and won a prize.

Reflecting back on it, I’ve had a few thoughts . . .

The plastic pellets actually put holes in the coke cans after enough hits. How dangerous those air soft guns are, and how realistic looking. They need to be controlled exactly like real firearms. That was one thought. The other was about my boy and how can I best teach him to not get hurt with guns in the future, and I mean get hurt in the widest possible sense. Obviously, never addressing the subject and hoping it never comes up won’t get it. We live in the real world and he’s definitely going to run into guns throughout his growing-up life.

The truth is I’m at a loss. I don’t have a clear plan on how to teach him the things he needs to know without increasing the mystique and fascination and attraction that are inherent in the using of guns. What do you think? Any ideas? I don’t necessarily want him to be a gun control enthusiast when he grows up, which is what I consider myself, but I certainly wouldn’t want him to be enthusiastic in the other direction.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 11:13 PM PDT

Gun Control and Marijuana

by mikeb302000

In Montana and Oregon they're very confused.


 Firearms dealers in states that allow medical marijuana can't sell guns or ammunition to registered users of the drug, a policy that marijuana and gun-rights groups say denies Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law.

    Federal law already makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if he or she is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" marijuana or other controlled substances. A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition.

That seems clear enough. Why would having a prescription for the drug change anything? The reason users of marijuana and other drugs are prohibited from owning firearms is because when taking the drug they are impaired and cannot responsibly and safely manage the guns.

Of course, the slippery slope is looming on the horizon of this policy. What about the prescription pain killers, some of which are like heroin? How can gun ownership be compatible with them and not with their street counterparts? The answer is simple and obvious, it cannot.

But never underestimate the power of the NRA and the gun lobby.


  Officials in two Oregon counties have said they'll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after state judges said sheriffs couldn't deny concealed handgun licenses for medical marijuana patients.

    The Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court said the state law that authorizes concealed handgun permits is separate from the federal law that outlaws gun possession by drug users, and the state gun law doesn't address medical marijuana use.

So, in spite of the federal law, the State of Oregon has decided concealed carry permits are OK for medical marijuana patients. It's sort of a technicality that one is a state law and the other is federal. I suppose those gun owners who are also medical marijuana patients had to conceal that fact when buying their guns.  Otherwise the gun dealer would have been constrained to deny the purchase because of the federal law.  Is that part legal, that concealing of marijuana use at the time of buying a gun?

Eventually this will all have to be straightened out.

What's your opinion? Do you think responsible gun owners can smoke pot and continue to be responsible?  I don't. I believe one would have to choose, pot or guns.  If you want to get high, fine I have no problem with it. Drugs should be legal anyway in my opinion.  But, I cannot accept that drug use and gun ownership are compatible.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:11 AM PDT

Rumsfeld - Hero or Criminal

by mikeb302000

Several members of the group Veterans for Peace were escorted out of the Old South Meeting House in Boston Monday night after they attempted a citizen's arrest of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In my book, only Dick Cheney beats this guy in the scoundrel race. Bush came a distant third to these two characters.

What's your opinion?  


Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:11 AM PDT

Obama - The First Jewish President

by mikeb302000

Al Jazerra published an op-ed on Obama: America's 'first Jewish president'?


 Obama is the "the first Jewish President". That's the title of New York magazine's lead article, written by John Heilemann and quoting a major Obama fundraiser.

    Listening to Obama speak at the United Nations on Wednesday many would nod in agreement, not less in Palestine and the Arab world.

    The US president has embraced the rejectionist Israeli position on the question of international recognition of an independent Palestinian state.

    But that's not a Jewish position. It's a radical Zionist position. Many Jews, including US and Israeli Jews, do not embrace such extremist views.

    But the fact that Obama surpassed his predecessor George W Bush, the most radical supporter of Israel among all US Presidents, has left everyone in Israel dumbstruck. The latest Zionist US president sounded like Israel's own founding fathers.

    Never have they heard a US president read straight from the papers of the Israeli government.

What do you think? Isn't it time for the U.S. to back down a bit from its staunch support of Israel? Instead it seems we're moving in the other direction. How do you explain that?

How can the entire world focus on the poor Libyans, who needed and deserved help to overthrow their oppressive government, while the Palestinians continue to be left out in the cold. Only the Kurds rival them for the number of people in an ethnic group without a country of their own. Isn't that what the 1st world countries are supposed to be trying to correct.

Does it make me cynical or a conspiracy theorist to suspect that decisions like these are made for political and economic gain and not for the moral principles we're suppose to stand for?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


SC Now reports

The police say it's a big success, but "a lot of researchers seem to disagree."

"According to The National Research Council, there is no evidence the gun buy back programs reduce gun violence."

Now, what we've got here is a failure to communicate. This is a standard pro-gun trick of rhetoric. Claiming there is "no evidence" in a situation where no evidence is possible, and saying it as if it proves something.  It's a classic example of intellectual dishonesty.

What they're really doing is, based on the fact that most of the guns turned in are not owned by criminals, saying the reduction in crime will be minimal if anything at all. But, the obvious truth is what the cop said at the end of the video. These guns, owned by average citizens are the ones often stolen in break-ins, which go directly into the criminal world.

You don't need statistics or proof or evidence to see that some of these guns would indeed be used in crime, at least if you're being honest about it and you don't have an agenda to support by denying the obvious.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)


Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM PDT

Florida 96-Year-Old Commits Murder

by mikeb302000

The St. Augustine Record reports


 Stevenson is accused of killing Rice, 53, while he lay in bed. Police discovered Rice’s body about 9 p.m. after his wife reported that he was blocking her entrance to their bedroom and was cold to the touch.

    Police said Rice was shot in the chest with a .357-caliber handgun, whose owner remains unknown.

    A wheelchair-bound Stevenson appeared before a judge via video Monday morning and said little. She is being held in the St. Johns County jail without bail.

Yesterday, on another site, I was accused of equating the elderly and the severely handicapped with criminals. This nonsensical accusation came from a post I wrote once in which I made, what I thought was a common-sense suggestion, that some elderly people and some handicapped people cannot responsibly handle firearms and should be disarmed. The key word in category 5 is "incapacitated."

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

Do you think Ms. Stevenson might have benefited from disarmament? How about her nephew and his family?

Why do gun-rights folks resist these simple and obvious suggestions so? Do you think they're afraid they themselves may be swept up in a frenzy of disarming people? Is it the slippery slope spectre that has them spooked?

What's your opinion? Isn't it possible to raise the bar in order to improve the quality of those who own and use guns without trampling people's rights?  I think so.

Please leave a comment.
(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site