Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL X (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fail rate: .0000002% (4+ / 0-)

    72 in a population of 313,914,040.   That's a "Fail" rate of .0000002 %.     We'd better act quick, or the human species will go extinct.  

    Who would have guessed there would be THAT many stupid people in the nation?     It's a relief to know that if we take away their guns, it will make them smarter, so they can't find new ways to hurt themselves.  

    Off topic, there was this guy who had a bachelor party at a fraternity house at my alma mater, and managed to fall off the roof of the second story building somehow, the night before his wedding.   Maybe we could try giving people like that a gun, and then taking it away again, to see if it will cure their deadly stupidity, like a vaccine.

    •  Did you major in statistics ? (10+ / 0-)

      Or is it just a passion of yours ?

      Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

      by indycam on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:45:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Off topic? Were you ever *on* topic? (16+ / 0-)

      Nothing like the minimization and dehumanization of damaged and destroyed lives, by making them look insignificant with math.

      What 'fail rate' would you find unacceptable, say, 1%? Hell, that'd only be 3 million plus in a week.

      We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

      by tytalus on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:46:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, you're looking at this (8+ / 0-)

        completely wrong.
        These are Responsible Gun OwnersTM, and getting shot or injured by your own gun is no different than say, a snake handler in a zoo being bitten by one of the snakes.
        When you handle a deadly weapon with the respect it deserves, it doesn't mean you'll never shoot yourself. It just means your chances of being shot are a lot less, but the chances are never zero, no matter how many precautions you take.
        It also points out that there are lot of people out there who have no business owning a gun.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:31:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, humans fail more than guns. Seems like (12+ / 0-)

      responsible gun ownership is a myth. They go off unexpectedly but always the bullet flies somewhere.

      You might not remember, this whole conversation is about Newtown and the results of non-responsible gun ownership, which you say is impossible really wouldn't interest anybody out side of a small circle of friends.

      guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

      by 88kathy on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:48:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  irresponsible gun owners (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        need to be punished.  Not responsible gun owners.  Yet some people have ideological and political issues with this.

        Irresponsible drinkers need to be punished, not responsible drinkers.  Does anyone take the temperance movement seriously nowadays when they want a return to prohibition?  Is there even a temperance movement today?

        Irresponsible politicians need to be voted out of office, not the ones who vote IAC our causes.  Does anybody here give that much credence to anarchists? How many of us are working within the system to affect change as opposed to working to topple the whole thing down?

        I could go on, but it's lunchtime.

        •  The government records real property transfers (18+ / 0-)

          Does that mean the government wants to confiscate your home?

          I for one am happy that I can count on an impartial third party to keep my records.

          I would think responsible gun owners would be happy to live in a "well-regulated" society.

          "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change things, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

          by NCJan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:10:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "well regulated" doesn't mean what you think.. (0+ / 0-)

            Well regulated in historical terms means that a militia board regularly inspects the militia and their equipment to correct any shortcomings.  I.e, do you have a rifle?  Is it functional?  If not, here, take this one instead.  Whats your weight?  Can you run a mile and not pass out?  No?  Ok, please report to the local school gym in the morning for PT until you can run a mile without passing out...

            Yes, I imagine we'd be much better off as a nation of every man 17-44 had regular checkups for fitness.  Think we'd still have as big an obesity problem in America?

            BTW, the local FFL does hold a copy of the record of sale of a firearm, for 20 years.  How do you think the police trace a weapon back to it's last recorded owner?

            I have no problem with going to an FFL for a transfer, even from, say, father to son. Not everyone here will agree with me, but if I had to choice between mandatory registration and madatory use of an FFL for all sales, I'd take the latter.

            You may not like or agree with the RKBA folks here on DK, but of all the gun owners in America we're the ones you're most likely to be able to work with.  Assuming work with doesn't mean "blindly follow" to you.
             

            •  Isn't that odd? (11+ / 0-)

              Because the word "regulate" is used in the Constitution several different times, yet only in the instance of the 2nd Amendment are we supposed to believe it means something completely different from all the other times it's used.

              “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

              by skohayes on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:34:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Huh. Funny. (6+ / 0-)

              But through all my readings in U.S. history, what with having a degree in it and all, I don't recall colonial militias having fitness tests down at the local school gym as being a requirement for membership.  

              Of course, if we want to talk about definitions, "arms" back then also meant something completely different than it does today.

              Back then, it meant most likely a smoothbore black powder flintlock musket.  Vaguely accurate at best out to maybe 50 yards in the hands of a good marksman and capable of about two to three shots per minute in the hands of same.  For better odds of hitting, you could fire "buck and ball", which consisted of adding a couple of pieces of buckshot in when you rammed the ball in while loading.  Sort of a minor shotgun effect.

              Or you could have a rifle, but since they were hand made and the rifling was difficult to do, they were expensive and relatively uncommon.  They were much more accurate and had longer range than the smoothbore musket, but because the minie ball so commonly used in the Civil War still hadn't been invented, loading was slow and even a good rifleman probably would be hard pressed to get off more than single shot in a minute.

              And of course there were cavalry sabers and bayonets.  There were cannon, too, but I don't think even the most insane Tea Partier is claiming everyone should be able to tow a cannon behind their SUV.  But, just in case there are some, these again would be mostly smoothbore and requiring a multi-man crew to fire with any degree of speed.

              So if we want to argue semantics about what was meant by a word in the 1780's, we can go there, but you might not like the results.  I'd completely get behind the idea that Americans can own an unlimited number of black powder smoothbore flintlocks.  

              •  the flintlock was the 'weapon of war' (0+ / 0-)

                at the time.

                If you agree that the founders expected the people to carry muskets, which was the weapon of war of the period, how can you argue that they wouldn't intend for the people of today, to carry the 'weapon of war' of today?

                •  As long as by "people" (4+ / 0-)

                  You don't mean slaves.

                  Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

                  by NCJan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:32:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  funny you mention slaves (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener

                    gun control was born out of fear of armed slaves.

                    •  Keep changing the subject (4+ / 0-)

                      It may make you feel good, but I don't think you're changing many minds.

                      Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

                      by NCJan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:31:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  who's changing the subject (0+ / 0-)
                        the flintlock was the 'weapon of war' (0+ / 0-)
                        at the time.

                        If you agree that the founders expected the people to carry muskets, which was the weapon of war of the period, how can you argue that they wouldn't intend for the people of today, to carry the 'weapon of war' of today?

                        by in the middle but all by myself on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:23:23 PM CDT

                        [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                         As long as by "people" (0+ / 0-)
                        You don't mean slaves.

                        Just because the government keeps a record of real property transfers, it doesn't mean that the government wants to confiscate your home.

                        by NCJan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:32:38 PM CDT
                        [ Parent | Reply to This |  Recommend   Hide ]

                        That was you, right?  asking me if by people I don't mean slaves?
                •  Really? (4+ / 0-)

                  Given that our current weapons of war include everything up to and including nuclear missiles, are you saying that the Founding Fathers truly intended for the average man on the street to be capable of annihilating entire cities, if only he had the monetary or technical wherewithal to acquire such means?

                  Even if we scale back a bit, the standard "weapons of war" today include such things as Predator drones armed with missiles.  Are you suggesting that it should be possible that the average man should be able to be so well armed that he could blow a hole in a middle school from the comfort of his living room thirty miles away?  Or that the FF's would have not found such a prospect properly horrifying?

                  If you're not suggesting that, then you need to modify your argument.

                  •  ordnance and munitions (0+ / 0-)

                    are not arms.

                    Tanks/planes/bombs/ICBMs are not arms.

                    A rifle is an arm. an rpg/grenade/stinger missile isn't.

                    •  Ah. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo, LilithGardener

                      So all those MidEast arms dealers we hear about are just dealing in personal sidearms, are they?

                      Gee, who gets to set these definitions?  You?  Can you point me to the definitive Constitutional definition of "arms"?

                      You might want to call up the US military, because they seem to have a definition of munitions that differs from yours and includes a lot of stuff you seem to consider "arms" as "munitions" and yet here you are arguing that they are not the same thing at all.  Here's a sample of the United States Munitions List from the Code of Federal Regulations:

                      Category I—Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns
                      *(a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm).
                      *(b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 caliber inclusive (12.7 mm).
                      *(c) Firearms or other weapons (e.g. insurgency-counterinsurgency, close assault weapons systems) having a special military application regardless of caliber.
                      *(d) Combat shotguns. This includes any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches.
                      *(e) Silencers, mufflers, sound and flash suppressors for the articles in (a) through (d) of this category and
                      their specifically designed, modified or adapted components and parts.
                      And of course the list goes on into much bigger and nastier weaponry in other categories, but to them it's all munitions.

                      Want to take a shot at moving those goalposts again?

                      •  Oh, but you're saved (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JVolvo, Penny GC

                        You see, the Munitions list defines various firearms (rifles, revolvers, etc), and excludes from the list

                        excludes any non-combat shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer, BB, pellet, and muzzle loading (black powder) firearms. This category does not cover riflescopes and sighting devices that are not
                        manufactured to military specifications.
                        There.  You can own all the shotguns, bb and pellet guns, and black powder firearms you want.

                        After all, they're not "munitions" as defined by the list.

                        Lock and load.  Or rather,

                        "Prime and Load, Handle Cartridge, Prime, About, Draw Ramrod, Ram Cartridge, Return Ramrod, Make Ready, Present!"

                      •  arms are a subet of munitions (0+ / 0-)

                        munitions are not a subset of arms.

                        If we were arguing instead that the 2nd amendment read

                        A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear munitions shall not be infringed
                        Then yes, you'd have a point with the bazookas/tanks/nukes hyperbole. Tanks/cannon/missiles/etc are munitions and ordnance not a subset of arms.

                        Everything in your list that you quoted is covered, and all if it can be prucaced legally by a civilian.

                        Fully automatic weapons, silencers, short barrel shotguns, and short barreled rifles fall under the NFA act.  You need a 200 dollar tax stamp, a six month (roughly) waiting period and another set of background checks, in addition to other additional laws to follow.

                      •  btw, the goal posts never moved... (0+ / 0-)

                        You simply tried quoting sources you didn't understand, and tried to apply them to a context under which they have no merit.

                        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                          You simply tried quoting sources you didn't understand, and tried to apply them to a context under which they have no merit.
                          Oh. You mean like your comments that there were 1790's era militia boards inspecting local town militias and putting them through PT at the local school gym, and that's totally what the Founding Fathers meant by "regulated" eh?

                          Given the state of State arsenals in 1860 when the Civil War broke out and the fact that no small number of weapons in them were ancient and decrepit holdovers from the Revolution and War of 1812, it doesn't appear there were militia boards doing much of anything, let alone making recruits do pushups and run laps to lose a few pounds.  Generally, being in the militia was much like getting into any fraternal organization, you sucked up to members and worked the Good Ol' Boy network and if they liked you, or you had the right parents or business connections, you were in.  Whether or not they had working guns anywhere was pretty much beside the point, as long as they had something that looked suitably martial they could shoulder for a parade on the 4th.

                          •  you mean mocking (0+ / 0-)

                            the militia board (if it had any relevancy today) as a source of dog-and-pony antics (in modern terms, yes this is where the pt comes in) because some people still use the old prefatory-clause-is-the-only-purpose-of-the-operative-clause argument for the 2nd amendment  is moving the goal posts?  And not trying to (mis)use the old, tired arument that since 2A folks think they can have modern rifles, why stop there, why not say you can have tanks/nukes/etc isn't?

                            I dunno, I guess missing the mockery on my part is in retrospect easy, if you've never been assigned to a garrison unit (where having the poncho rubber-banded to the back of your LBE instead of in your butt pack where it won't fall of can only be expected from a unit commander who never actually goes to the field).  

                            Trying to use "

                            Really? (4+ / 0-)
                            Given that our current weapons of war include everything up to and including nuclear missiles, are you saying that the Founding Fathers truly intended for the average man on the street to be capable of annihilating entire cities, if only he had the monetary or technical wherewithal to acquire such means?
                            to bolster your argument that the founding fathers only intended the people to have muskets, not modern firarms, then attempting to confuse the subject of munitions (tanks et al) and arms to show some kind of logical falacy... no, thats not moving the goal posts what so ever. /mockery (since it was arguably subtle the first time)
                          •  This is (0+ / 0-)

                            getting to be a long conversations, eh?

                            My apologies if you intended the PT comments as mockery, it did get past me.  Probably because on the internet it no longer surprises me when someone has a complete misunderstanding or misperception of history.  (I mean, good lord, we have entire day-long marathons on the so-called History Channel about how aliens built damned near everything!).  :-p

                            And I wasn't trying to confuse the issue with the munitions comment.  Let's note that you brought up the issue of "weapons of war" which is, you have to admit, covers everything in history from a pointed stick on up to the biggest nuke we have.  Once I pointed that out, you started changing the it from just "weapons of war" to then making a distinction between munitions and arms.  I merely provided definitions from Federal Code that showed that arms were munitions.

                            I tip my hat to your logic that arms are munitions but not all munitions are arms, and I'll concede that on consideration that seems to be the case.  Been a long time since I've done Venn diagrams, but that makes sense even to me.

                            I don't think the FF's only intended us to have flintlocks, actually, but quite often the argument around the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution in general) just devolves down to some kind of  (IMO opinion often ridiculous) "original intent" argument where people pretend to know what people living at the end of the 18th Century would think or do about real-world situations in the early 21st.  The flintlock argument on MY part was snark, because it's an attempt to show how ridiculous that Originalist argument can be when taken to the logical extreme and offering another way to look at it -- "The FF's only knew black powder weapons-- therefore it must have been their intent for people to own those".  Or, you can take the argument that they wanted people to be able to protect themselves from the government, so why not a nuke, right?  Because after all, technology now is such that the only sure way to defend yourself from a military a big as the US is to assure mutual destruction.  And Goober and his friends holed up in the backwoods with a shack full of assault rifles dreaming of "defending their rights against the tyranny" aren't going to last long against a drone strike, if the government really decided it wanted to drop the hammer on the people.

                            Obviously, the FF's intended neither of those, and the hard part is for us, now 225 years on down the road, to figure out the best path with the framework they gave us to work with.  And because the Constitution itself was a compromise document hammered together by people from different sections of the country with varied interests, sometimes that framework is unfortunately vague, and because language and meanings evolve over time, we end up with arguments over what constitutes "arms" and "well-regulated" and "militia".

                          •  the good news / bad news paradigm (0+ / 0-)

                            of DK RKBA discussions, as illustrated by everything else above.

                            Good news:  once both sides of the issue get their fill of snark and mockery of the message, both parties to the discussion can usually find common ground and some meaningful discussion can be held, about how to both preserve 2A rights while promoting safety.  We are after all, reasonable and intelligent people here (at least more reasonable then other online communities).

                            Bad news:  Once the snark/mockery starts, it can take a while to let it burn itself out, then when meaningful discussion (finally) takes place, both parties are usually wiped out.  So it ends up being 90% noise and 10% useful discussion (i.e Kossacks talking to one another instead of shouting down one another).

                            I just wish we could just skip past the emotion and snark every time and get to the discussion part sooner.

                  •  Me, I'd prefer to keep my nuclear sub anchored (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NCJan, lyvwyr101, Penny GC, SoCalSal

                    at the 79th Street boat basin, when I'm not cruising around New York harbor.

                    /snark

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:41:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  What? (6+ / 0-)

          Being responsible is very very very very very very very very relative.  I'm sure most of those folks on that list were "responsible gun owners" up until they shot themselves, their neighbors or whomever else...

          The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

          by lcj98 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:24:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  a responsible gun owner (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            geemah, LilithGardener

            is a well trained gun owner.

            If you're not carrying a handgun that isn't somewhat drop-safe, thats on you.  If you are carrying and don't understand your obligations, thats on you.  If you have poor trigger discipline, thats on you.

            A 17 year old, who is carrying and shoots himself in the crotch, is carrying illegally.

            No, these folks were not responsible gun owners who simply had a bad day.  They were irresponsible gun owners (leagal or otherwise) who simply hadn't had their meeting with Murphy yet.

            •  So everyone who has an accident with a gun... (9+ / 0-)

              ... is an irresponsible gun owner?

              •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                everyone.  who is holding a gun and has an accident, was irresponsible because they either didn't know what they were doing, or became complacent.  They did something wrong.

                The gun won't go off by itself unless theres a round in the chamber, and the chamber is really hot (like a loaded gun sitting in a room that is on fire, or you just emptied a few magazines worth, rapid fire, and now have a live round jammed in the chamber).

              •  Obviously... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jeff in nyc, lyvwyr101

                because "responsible gun owners" never make mistakes, or have accidents...  NEVER.

                The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

                by lcj98 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:55:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  one more time... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jeff in nyc

                  unless theres a cook-off, the gun is only going to fire if you have a round chambered, the safety is off and you pull the trigger.

                  basic gun safety rules:

                  1). the gun is always loaded.
                  2). don't point the muzzle at anything you don't want shot.
                  3). keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
                  4). be sure of your target and what lies beyond

                  If they're followed, you're going to have a hard time messing up and having an accident.

                  If you don't follow these, you've just messed up.  If you've you keep messing up, sooner or later you're going to have an accident.  And it's all your fault.  Not the guns.

                  •  I have no idea how common it is, but certainly (4+ / 0-)

                    guns fire all the time without touching the trigger. I'm surprised to learn that it's pretty common. There's probably no idea to know HOW common, since you'd only hear anecdotes plus the tragedies that make it into news.

                    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                    by jeff in nyc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:29:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Anyone who is telling you this (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      is coming up with excuses for being negligent.

                      A modern design like a Glock, have s series of failsafes that prevent the striker form firing a round unless the trigger is pulled (drop it, kick it, whatever, it's not going off unless you kick it or it cooks off).

                      An older design, like a 1911 has multiple failsafes.  it won't go off unless its really worn out and you do something questionable.

                      Its really hard to make an older gun go off by itself, and nearly impossible for a modern design (I'd say never but a cookoff in a hot chamber is always a possibility).

                      •  To clarify--I don't mean just firing when a gun (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lyvwyr101

                        is just sitting somewhere. I meant like when a gun falls or is jostled, but when nobody is touching the trigger or even the gun.

                        “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

                        by jeff in nyc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:18:43 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I think it's pretty uncommon - (2+ / 0-)

                      and that police and others tolerate a lot of lying.

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:49:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Yes - I agree that is true. (2+ / 0-)

                With the exception of a faulty product (a faulty gun or a faulty bullet), EVERY UNINTENTIONAL shooting irresponsible gun ownership or use.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:45:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  yeah, the dude in silverdale wa (3+ / 0-)

              who was active duty military...he was totally untrained.

              the problem with "responsible gun owner"ship is that no one meets that bar.  because even military personnel, trained officers, and security don't meet that requirement when they're the dipshits fucking up.

              you throw them to the wolves as being specific cases of idiocy (that's on them) instead of seeing that as symptomatic of a larger issue which is...guns are not safe.

              •  at what point did I say that (0+ / 0-)

                training absolves you of ever being a fuck-up?

                training should help you understand what/what not to do.  It's no guarantee.  It's not immunity.

                If you do something careless, you're are being irresponsible.  If you've been properly trained, you should know the difference between what is proper and what is careless.

                If the firearm goes off 'accidentally'/negligently while you're in control of it.  You were irresponsible.  Period.  It did nothing without you.

                •  All well and good (0+ / 0-)

                  but the person hit by your stray round is still....you know...........dead.

                  Oops. Sorry. My bad.

                  If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

                  by Major Kong on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 07:52:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Unfortunate fact of life (0+ / 0-)

                there are trained dickheads in EVERY job and in EVERY profession.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:20:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Rec for creative phrasing. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheDuckManCometh
              They were irresponsible gun owners (legal or otherwise) who simply hadn't had their meeting with Murphy yet.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:58:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And the public menace created by shall issue (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lyvwyr101

              carry permits is on the legislatures that pass those extremely permissive laws.

              If you're not carrying a handgun that isn't somewhat drop-safe, thats on you.  If you are carrying and don't understand your obligations, thats on you.  If you have poor trigger discipline, thats on you.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:43:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  may-issue laws only examine why (0+ / 0-)

                a given person is asking for a carry permit, and also, who they are (in New York, good luck getting a carry permit if you're not connected or a celebrity).

                A may-issue permit hold can still suffer from poor gun choice, lack of understanding of carry rules and justifiable use of deadly force, and poor trigger discipline *cough* Sen Feinstein *cough*.

                •  I agree that New York's law is extremely (0+ / 0-)

                  restrictive.

                  I would argue if surrounding states from which guns are trafficked into New York were MORE restrictive, then New York could consider loosening the requirements.

                  Have you ever looked at gun crime over time?  That big hump in the mid 90's was largely due to gun crime in New York.

                  IOW a federal carry law that was LESS restrictive than New York, was limited to the specific type of gun and model, and  required training/proficiency in firearm safety, accurate moving target selection, and federal/regional/state firearm law then we could start to talk about reciprocity with states that had similar competency tests.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:49:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the problem with stipulating what model of gun (0+ / 0-)

                    you can carry is that as humans, we have different sized hands, and different tolerances for recoil.

                    A 1911 is my choice for warm weather carry.  When it's colder I go for a Glock.  Some need an even smaller grip for their smaller hands.

                    I shot 45ACP very well, some people can't tolerate the recoil.  For others the 9mm recoil is too sharp and they prefer the slightly bigger ( but slower) recoil of the 45ACP.  Some people can't even handle that and need to go lower, to .380

                    What works well for me can be totally unsafe for you.  Using a gun whos grip is awkward or recoil you can't handle can do two things:

                    -Mess up your accuracy, making you unsafe.
                    -Mess up your handling, making you unsafe.

                    It's good in theory but problematic in terms of practicality.  

                    •  Right, but then your permit would be (0+ / 0-)

                      to carry either/or, after you proved competency with both.

                      A 1911 is my choice for warm weather carry.  When it's colder I go for a Glock.  Some need an even smaller grip for their smaller hands.
                      Someone else would only be approved to carry a rifle that they have proven competent to use for hunting.

                      A competent hunter is not necessarily going to be able to use a hand gun effectively* for self defense.

                      A petite woman competent with a pistol is not necessarily going to be able to effectively* use a rifle for any purpose.

                      *effectively = use without creating a menace to themselves or others.

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:40:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  some states have this now. (0+ / 0-)

                        Iirc, in texas, if you take your carry qualification with a revolver, you're only allowed to carry a revolver, logic being the additional controls on an a semi-auto

                        other states have separate licenses for firearms and for carry (massachusetts, for example).  Illinois will be close behind in June, assuming that the legislature doesn't run out the clock (and then we get constitutional carry).

                        Typically a state carry permit requires you to pass a firearm handling and accuracy test on a range (handle safely, present form holster, render safe, engage the target x number of times needing a y hit percentage).  The instructor can fail you for unsafe handling, missing too much, etc.

                        They don't necessarily quiz you on your firearm per se, but they will fail you for obvious safety issues like not knowing where the safety is, how to engage disengage it, how to drop the magazine, etc.

                        And theres the myriad of clones of certain pistol types, say I'm qualified for a Beretta M9 (not ironically a pistol I quallified with in the Army).  A M9 is a beretta 92F(S).  theres also a closely related 92A1, and a 92SB.  Then there's the Taurus PR92/99/100/101 series, nearly identical since it's a licensed copy.  But legally a different pistol.  One permit to rule them all?  Or one certification for each?

                        •  I'm sure that it's not the same but I have in (0+ / 0-)

                          mind something like the difference between a driver's license, a motorcycle license, a limosine license, a minibus license, etc.

                          With firearms, there could be groups that are covered under a single license, but they would have to function and be cleared in the same manner, IMO.

                          IOW, extending a license to cover a different firearm might be a simple as sending in proof to the licensing body of lawful purchase and prior certification in that class.

                          I'm way out of my depth re what would be practical divisions.

                          BTW, is there a convenient source where carry permit laws are organized by state?

                          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                          by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:26:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but no one has the right to create a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TheDuckManCometh

          menace for themselves or others.

          Let's take your analogy, alcohol.

          Alcohol is restricted for that very reason. The majority of people who consume alcohol can do so without creating a public menace.

          Consider just one example of a restriction that reduces public harm. Open container laws are there specifically to avoid lawful alcohol users from crossing the wide gray lines that separate responsible consumption / irresponsible consumption / creating a public menace for pedestrians and vehicles passing by.

          If (and only if) we are willing to admit that some people can not be trusted to self regulate their lawful, but irresponsible, impulses to display or use a gun in the public sphere,

          then, (and only then) will we be willing to choose among  many possible solutions to the reduce the public menace of irresponsible and unlawful display or use of a gun.

          There are many possible restrictions that can protect the right of self defense (and other lawful firearm uses) and can create a buffer zone against behaviors that create a public menace when some people decide to carry their gun into the public sphere.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:57:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  an open container law (0+ / 0-)

            stipulates that you can't carry an open container in public, in public view, etc.  If you do so, it's a crime.  There is no real affirmative defense I know of for an open container.

            you're allowed to drink all day in private, assuming you're of age and are not operating machinery, driving (or in most states, carrying a gun).

            shooting somebody in self defense, is still homicide.  The self defense claim is an affirmative defense (yes I shot him, in defense of my life).  That gets you off the hook for murder.  

            But wait, you still broke an unlawful use of a weapon law by brandishing a pistol (drawing in public).  AND you likely broke another law for discharging the firearm within city limits. A carry permit gives you an affirmative defense for brandishing and discharging the weapon.  Again, assuming it was ruled a good shoot.

            Until you talk about carry laws, it's close, but there's to aspects of gun control currently:

            -What you should/shouldn't be able to own
            -Where you should/shouldn't be able to have it.

        •  Is there even a temperance movement today? (2+ / 0-)

          Yes there is.

          And there are whole dry towns where alcohol/alcoholism is such a scourge that the most common criminals are those who smuggle alcohol or make home brew.

          See also, Seward Peninsula Alaska where alcohol interdiction reduces accidents, domestic violence and murder.

          .

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:32:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  funny O/T story (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            I was exposed to blue laws, dry counties, ABC stores, etc growing up, my better half wasn't.

            The first vacation we took together after college was to camp/hike/check out Mammoth Cave in Kentucky.

            Mammoth cave is surrounded by blue counties.  I understood what that meant.  She didn't.  One night after a long hike she had a bad taste for a beer.  I told her we'd have to drive for three hours to get her one, she didn't believe me or understand, it was almost out first fight!  After we drove up and down the interstate for an hour or so, stopping at every gas station exit and her asking the attendant where the beer cooler was, she finally understood.  It was a quiet drive back to the campsite.

        •  I'm with you (0+ / 0-)
          irresponsible gun owners (1+ / 0-)

          need to be punished.  Not responsible gun owners.  Yet some people have ideological and political issues with this.

          Training, proficiency testing, including safe handling, accurate shooting, and moving target discrimination test, along with an understanding of firearm law and education about the impairment that alcohol poses (reduced judgment, poor impulse control, reduced reaction time).

          If we can agree to restrictions that separate lawful RKBA from lawful alcohol use I predict that accidents, injuries and gun crime can go down, by A LOT.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:37:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Dude, there are no responsible gun owners. Just (0+ / 0-)

          lucky ones.

      •  I didn't say it was impossible (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101

        But, you can't make irresponsible people responsible with a law.   It's only responsible people who bother to follow laws.  

        The diary says, LOOK AT THIS HUGE LIST.  JUST LOOK AT IT!!!    72 for the year!   FAIL!!!  

        72 of WHAT?    What does 72 mean?   Is it big or small?   How many people had a chance to FAIL, and how many did FAIL?    

        Assuming all the FAILS were in the U.S., I divided 72 FAILS by a U.S. population of 313,914,040  and got the percentage rate .000002%, or 2 FAILS out of 10,000,000 U.S. citizens.   If I erred by a decimal point or two, I apologize.  I don't think I did, but it's possible to slip when converting the scientific notation.    It was so small, the calculation wouldn't display without scientific notation.

        It's still the same thing that the diary said, just presented in a different way.  72 FAILs this year.  But, it looks a little different THIS way.

        It's amazing how people don't want you to read the diary and actually examine the information it contains, but just drink the koolaid.

        I'm sure that there are many FAILs that got missed.  Still, I think my biggest worry is still traffic accidents, and disease.

        •  72 SO FAR this year....it's only March (5+ / 0-)

          and these are only ones David was able find that were reported and available on the web.

          David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

          by PsychoSavannah on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:26:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  72 for this week (6+ / 0-)

          and no...not divided by the whole population, because we don't all worship guns.  i certainly don't have one and don't wish to be lumped together with those that do.

          leave the number crunching to the statisticians.

          and gun deaths rank right up at the top of the list with accidents according to REAL statisticans but you don't want to hear that.

        •  huh? (5+ / 0-)

          You do know that we aren't even 90 days into 2013 right?  So that "72 for the year" thing is stupid.  Also,  that 72 is just 72 examples of THOUSANDS, so all of that idiotic fail rate bullshit represents nothing.

          Your blissful ignorance is keeping you from using your critical thinking stills.

          The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing online commenters that they have anything to say.-- B.F.

          by lcj98 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:32:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think the 72 to which the diarist refers is the (8+ / 0-)

          ... number of people who have shot themselves while cleaning their guns, not the total of "gun fails" for the year. That number is much, much higher.

        •  Actually, (6+ / 0-)

          you wouldn't use the total population of the US.
          You'd use the estimated 35% who are gun owners, since those who don't own guns won't be shooting themselves or others- only perhaps getting shot.

          That's a figure about 109,869,914.

          Then you take the 72 people and divide by that number. .0000065%.

          How many go unreported? Accidental discharges that do property damage or escape consequence of any kind, but are still potetially lethal? There is no efficient way to estimate.

          Some estimates put gun deaths and woundings at about 10,000 per year. While that may be a small percentage of the total population of the United States, by what measure is 10,000 casualties per year acceptable?

          I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

          by Gentle Giant on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:38:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I believe (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gentle Giant

            the 35% figure is households with a gun, not persons who own guns.

            "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

            by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:55:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The gun violence impact is higher than that. (6+ / 0-)

            The Centers for Disease Control reports the number of gun deaths for 2011 (the most recent year that they have on their website) as 31,672. That rate was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 total population (a much more helpful statistic to report for easy comparisons than a decimal with a bunch of zeroes.) If instead you replace the denominator with gun owners, assuming they constitute the 35% of the population that has been reported based on recent surveys, you get 29.4 deaths per 100,000 gun owners.

            Injury rates are harder to ascertain than death rates, thanks to reporting limitations - so far the NRA has not succeeded in making it illegal to report cause of death as gunshot wound on death certificates, and those are, in principle, all reported to the CDC. But the CDC has a variety of sources including surveys and hospital discharge data. They reported, based on these sources, an average of 62,266 injuries per year during the period 2003-2007. (These are the ones serious enough to get you to a hospital or doctor for treatment.) If we combine those with the firearm death rate, we get 33 gun deaths per 100,000 population or 93 per 100,000 gun owners, every year. Over a 10 year period, that's about 1 death for every 300 gun owners, and one injury/death for every 100 gun owners.

            The annual death rate from guns is about in the same ballpark as the annual death rate from breast cancer or that from prostate cancer. This country has put a huge amount of effort into trying to understand and prevent cancer deaths. But gun advocates have put a huge amount of effort into obstructing national research and prevention efforts for gun deaths. This is wrong. It's time to change.

            •  Quick correction (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gentle Giant, SoCalSal

              Second paragraph should say 33 gun deaths + injuries. Numbers are right but units wrong.

            •  The most comparable cause of death (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SoCalSal

              is probably automobile accidents.  Given the trend in auto accidents, accidental shooting deaths may well exceed automobile accident deaths within a few years.  Of course, many more people use cars than own guns--and cars are much more useful than guns.

              The differences in our responses are painfully obvious:  we require insurance, automobiles must meet safety standards,  drivers must be licensed and cars must be registered, and there are no special liability shields for automobiles.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:55:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Your math is failing (5+ / 0-)

          David only brings up stories like the above to highlight what a joke the term "Responsible Gun OwnerTM" really is.

          We don't joke about incidents like this one:

          A 3-year-old boy in Greenville, South Carolina was shot in the head and killed on Friday after he started playing with a pink handgun because he thought it was a toy.
          Or these:
          An Alabama man was in surgery on Sunday after police said he shot himself and his 6-year-old daughter while cleaning his gun.
          No arrests have been made in the accidental shooting death of a 4-year-old boy.
           According to the Memphis police, Joshua Johnson was playing with a gun Monday when it went off.  He was pronounced dead on the scene.
          Minneapolis police confirm a 2-year-old boy is dead after he was shot by his 4-year-old brother on Wednesday afternoon.
          Nothing to laugh about here, that's for sure.

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:42:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They are tragic (0+ / 0-)

            And, so are the kids who drown in swimming pools and toilets.

            And, so are the kids who fall out of windows and off staircases.  

            And, the kids who are backed over the driveway.  

            And, the kids who are attacked by dogs.

            And, the kids who die from getting hold of toxic substances.

            And, the kids who die from falling and hitting their heads.  

            And the kids who die from being attacked by other kids or adults.

            It's all horrible and tragic.  

            However, when we are considering legislation, I am not going to be railroaded by a list of sad stories.   We could as easily list some tragic deaths in car accidents and decide to outlaw cars.   YES, it's tragic.    Acknowledging tragic events does not obligate one to support someone's political agenda.

        •  For starters (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, Miggles

          the denominator isn't the entire population.

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:54:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure the people with holes in them... (16+ / 0-)

      really give a shit about your statistics.

    •  Also: Missed the part about "take away guns." (21+ / 0-)

      Because, of course, it's not there.

      This particular list is for the people who say, "Put 'em in every classroom, and every college student's backpack. What could go wrong?"

      This could go wrong.

      Take your statistics to a funeral and see if anyone thinks you're clever.

    •  You do realize (12+ / 0-)

      that these are just the ones that the diarist is aware of?

      And this also doesn't include what are undoubtedly many close calls or accidental property damage incidents that don't make the news.  

      Also, the POINT of these stories is to counterpoint the the NRA claims that we're all safer with more and more guns, all the guns we can carry, quick get that kid a concealed carry permit so we can stash one in his stroller in case any suspicious people want to take his candy!  

      And finally, your statistics are, to be blunt, stupid.  Some proportion of that population is, for example, under a year old.  Not likely to be packing.  Nor is the elderly gent on life support down at County General.  So really, your statistic is useless.  By comparison, I can easily say that about 28,000 people OD'd on legal and illegal drugs in '09.  That's a miniscule percentage of the total population, so by your argument therefore crack cocaine and methamphetamine should totally be legal and Oxycontin ought to be over-the-counter, right?

    •  Comment FAIL. These stories here are the (0+ / 0-)

      tip of the iceberg.  The author has repeatedly stated that due to the overwhelming number of gun "incidents" that happen just on a daily basis that he has had to winnow way down what gets presented here.  And finally, look at how the number of "GunWin" stories are so few and far between.  Where are all those many stories of assault weapons saving the day?

    •  Thanks for providing the necessary stupid (0+ / 0-)

      for this thread.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site