Skip to main content

View Diary: Universal background check could be as dead as assault weapons ban (614 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm ok with an individual gun ownership right (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, LilithGardener, The Marti

    I'm not seeking to get rid of that.  I would, however, prefer to phrase it in a way that makes it clear that I do not like anti-government libertarians who fear law enforcement.

    •  My main concern is those who put their right (7+ / 0-)

      to own a gun above my right to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I accept limits on my rights when they impinge negatively on others, yet many in the gun fetish camp (which is a subset of the RKBA group) feel they have the right to a gun no matter how much they endanger themselves (not really my concern) or others (a major concern).

      •  Nobody can endanger someone with a gun.... (0+ / 0-)

        or any other object.

        Hence the crime of assault, murder etc.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:03:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That doesn't even make sense (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn

          Or are you ignoring the meaning of "endanger"?  That's like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people", which is laughable, since thousands of people are killed every year by guns who would not be killed in any other fashion.

          There are lots of accidents, lots of threats made with guns, lots of people who are threatened by people who they know have guns (e.g. wives who get protection orders from ex-husbands who they know have guns and are dangerous).

          •  "doesn't make sense" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            noway2

            Is that why we charge the gun, knife etc with the crime of murder?

            I am surrounded by guns. It is a very low crime area. I can assure you, it isn't the gun that is the problem.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:25:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No one can endanger someone with a gun? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, LilithGardener

          Hmmm?  If no one can endanger someone with a gun, then the whole self-defense justification for gun ownership pretty much goes out the window.  After all, people who buy guns because they say they need them for self-defense very much want to endanger other human beings whom they perceive to be a threat.

          But then logic doesn't appear to be your strong point.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:03:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The comment pretty clearly referred to crimes. (0+ / 0-)

            But then literacy doesn't appear to be your strong point.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:36:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So what if it refers to crimes? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim, LilithGardener

              Your statement is nonsensical on its face.  "No one can endanger someone with a gun"?  Really?  If no one can endanger someone with a gun, how is it that people are killed and wounded when they're shot?

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:54:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No. Not legally. Which was the point of the thread (0+ / 0-)

                Again, 'literacy'--you should work on it.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:58:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, legally. (0+ / 0-)

                  See, e.g., State v. Ghiloni, 398 A.2d 1204, 1205-06 (Ct. App. 1978):

                  A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree “when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of physical injury to another person.” General Statutes s 53a-64. “(A) person acts ‘recklessly’ with respect to a result . . . when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur . . . . The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” General Statutes s 53a-3(13). The statute applies an objective yardstick to measure the nature and degree of the risk. If this yardstick is used here, there was [1206] ample evidence from which the trier could have concluded that when the defendant fired his gun at the ground in the general vicinity of the assailants, the risk of injury was substantial. The statute applies a subjective yardstick to measure the defendant's awareness of the risk. Subjective realization of a risk may be inferred from a person's words and conduct when viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances. LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law (2d Ed.) s 30. The defendant had been familiar with firearms for twenty-five years. He acknowledged to the police that he should have fired his shot into the air and that it was stupid to have fired at the ground. He did not know where *574 the bullet hit. The assailants on the street below were dressed in baker-type white uniforms and were within close range of his line of fire. Those factors, taken in the light of the surrounding circumstances, were sufficient to permit the court to conclude not only that the defendant was aware of the nature of the risk involved in his conduct but that he consciously chose to disregard it in a misguided belief that by doing so he was helping to apprehend the perpetrators of a vicious assault.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:21:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And for your further reading enjoyment: (0+ / 0-)

                  People v. Shoonmaker, 479 N.Y.S.2d 765, 766-67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984):

                  On this appeal, defendant argues that his conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree cannot stand since no person was in the immediate vicinity of the path of his bullet. That fact was merely**767 fortuitous and cannot inure to the benefit of this defendant, who knew the house was occupied and who did not know the location of the occupants when he fired into the outside wall of the kitchen (see Matter of Mario Y., 75 A.D.2d 954, 956, 428 N.Y.S.2d 71).

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:29:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site