Skip to main content

View Diary: More details on loaded gun found in Target toy aisle (287 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for the update (51+ / 0-)

    I really had a feeling that there was something off about the gun being there.

    Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

    by high uintas on Fri Jun 06, 2014 at 06:52:09 PM PDT

    •  And please follow up on this story (23+ / 0-)

      as more details emerge. I suppose it is not impossible that some sadly misguided gun control 'advocate' left this weapon in order to provoke an incident. Just as it is not impossible that some crazy gun nut did. It will be interesting and important to find out. But that's a secondary issue, really. The primary issue is some *sshole left a loaded gun in the toy section of a store. Whoever did it should be locked up for decades, if not for life. But no, that won't happen, because we can't have laws that demand responsible behavior from people who own guns, now can we? Because freedum!

      Gun rights? OK, let's start this discussion with the same words the 2nd Amendment does: "well regulated"

      by DocDawg on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 07:42:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think (6+ / 0-)

        If a gun control fanatic did this I doubt he would not have left a loaded gun.  I may be wrong, fanatics of all ilk are desperately out of control and capable of anything.  

        The problem isn't really guns, it's people.  Guns have never hurt anyone without the direct participation of people.  You can take everyone's guns and the same crazy people will exist and find other ways to make life miserable for the more well balanced people in society.

        Whether a government inspired gun control nut did this or a legitimate gun nut did this, it was done by an imbalanced person with no respect for human life.  

        Can't you imagine this perp going home to watch FOX or CNN or whatever news channel he chooses for his brainwashing to see the news reports begin to come in about a shooting?

        "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

        by Hermenutic on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:34:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except that they have as if you check the (16+ / 0-)

          GunFAIL diaries plenty of people have been shot without anyone going anywhere near the trigger, just routine cleaning and such.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:02:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pro-gun; anti-gun: this is just stupid. (15+ / 0-)

            I don't care who put the gun in the Target store: pro-gun nut; anti-gun nut; or just a nut. Even pure negligence is punishable under the law. Whoever this person is, the authorities need to see how many charges they can load on them and go for the max on each one. If it was a deliberate act, it should be treated as terrorism and punished accordingly.

            As far as I have ever been concerned, any business has the right to allow or not allow firearms on their premises and they don't owe anyone an explanation. All I ask is a sign letting me know. I am not going to boycott any business because it does or does not allow firearms.

            However, addressing the point made above: on most modern handguns, the trigger must be pulled all the way to the rear for the gun to fire. Sadly, one of the big exceptions to this rule is the M1911-style .45 ACP pistol. Certain models lack a firing pin block and can discharge if dropped. On any double-action revolver made since World War II, the gun cannot discharge without pulling the trigger. Colt double-action revolvers had this feature decades before the war; Smith & Wesson added it during the war.

            But with or without a firing pin block, a firearm that does not have a live cartridge in it will not discharge.

            Whenever you handle a firearm of any type, the first thing to do is check to see if it is loaded. Remove the magazine then lock the action open; open the cylinder or bolt. Check feed tubes in firearms so equipped. Then check the chamber to see if a cartridge is present.

            Every time. All the time. "I thought..." is not the same as performing this simple examination.

            If someone hands me a gun to look at, I check. When I hand it back, the action is open, just to make sure nothing magically appeared.

            Even in a gun store, where I have every reason to believe the guns are not loaded, I always check. When I get one of my own guns out of the safe, even though I know it was unloaded when I put it away, I check.

            Every member of my family knows to check every firearm.

            Result? Decades of zero gun accidents; zero gun injuries; zero regrets caused by a failure to be a responsible gun owner.

            In my book, "I didn't know it was loaded" is an admission of guilt, not an excuse.

            •  weapon check (8+ / 0-)

              When I learned to shoot, the instructor said to do this EVERY TIME you handle a weapon. Make it a habit - good habits are also hard to break.
              I recently went to a range and a fellow was showing a new pistol. Every one who handled the pistol did the same thing: drop the clip and open the action, even though the person next to them did it 5 seconds before...
              Shows 'good safety' vs. 'cowboy' right away.
              Sorry, that's giving cowboys a bad name.
              Maybe 'good safety' vs. 'reckless'.

            •  We aren't talking about people who consider safety (9+ / 0-)

              "I am not going to boycott any business because it does or does not allow firearms."

              But I am, and millions are.

              The only gun that can never kill anyone
              is the one that never existed.

              •  Fine. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, bobcat41702, G2geek, JimB37

                I'm sure that all those businesses who are putting up those signs are making you feel so much better better. But let's be very clear: those signs do not carry the force of law in most states. They may be emotionally satisfying to see; but they also do absolutely zip to ensure that any given space is actually gun-free.

                In WA, a state where 1 in 11 adults has a CPL, the odds are very good that any store you're in has at least a few people who are carrying, regardless of the signs posted on the doors. And they're not violating any law by breezing right by the sign. If their concealment fails, the store can ask them to leave, and charge them with trespassing if they refuse. But that's about it.

                As a responsible gun owner, I am in despair at the gap between what we know about actually fixing our gun violence problems, and the emotional feel-good, non-evidence-based policies our side is constantly coming up with. Signs and boycotts are a whole lot of sound and fury; but when it comes to actually doing anything meaningful about the problem, they signify pretty much nothing.

                •  There is a big difference (4+ / 0-)

                  in a concealed weapon, where most have to have a permit to carry, and a gang walking in with assault rifles! A BIG difference.
                  In every state I've been in, a business that posts a sign that says service will be denied w/o a shirt, shoes, (or open carry), etc, HAS the right to deny service to those that break the posted rules. In some states now, businesses fight for the right to deny service to the LGTB community, and THAT'S OK? Bars deny service all the time to people who in "the bars opinion" are too drunk. In fact they can be sued for serving a drunk who kills or causes damage if they drive home. In that case one could argue that I have a constitutional right to get as drunk as I want? Yes, perhaps. But, I don't have a right to harm another person.
                  You advocate that this country operate like say Syria, Iraq, Turkey etc., where everyone carries their own assault rifle and their short tempers. And that is working out SO well for them isn't it?  

                  •  Ever been to Turkey? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero, okpkpkp, Catte Nappe

                    I go every year and have never seen anyone carrying weapons around that didn't have a uniform on. I feel much safer in Turkey than I do in fucking SC....not busting on you, but you are wrong to just grab random countries and spew untruths.

                  •  You are right (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero, highpckts, Yonit

                    There is a big difference between a concealed weapon and a fool carrying an AK 47 into a coffee shop. The barista may have a right to direct the gun totin' cowboy to leave, but it is hard to do so when he's carrying...especially if he has seven friends also carrying automatic long guns.

                    This is about power plays, not the 2nd amendment. These guys seem to have doubts about their toughness and need a big "masculinity" display.

                    “The quality of owning freezes you forever in "I," and cuts you off forever from the "we.” ― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath

                    by Miss Pip on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:53:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Any barista should be able to tell any to leave (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      I don't care if the shop is packed with yahoos and the barista is five feet tall and weighs 90 pounds dripping wet. If the barista tells them to leave, they must leave or they become criminals and are subject to arrest.

                      In this case, the barista has all the power. Which is as it should be.

                •  handguns and assault rifles are made to kill peopl (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  okpkpkp, Yonit

                  Now tell me why we should let anyone own one, much less walk around with one.

                  We kidnap. We torture. It's our policy. Embrace it or end it!

                  by Mosquito Pilot on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 05:12:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As much as I don't like guns... (0+ / 0-)

                    I realize that there are cases where someone may need or fell the need for protection, so I am willing to support this right.  However, I think every owner should pass a basic test to make sure they know how to safely use/store it, when it is okay or not okay to use it (including some basic legal info.), and they must be cleared based on background check and mental illness/status.  (Just specific mental illness/issues would disqualify them.)  I also believe hunting should be allowed in a similar way.
                    This is generally more restrictive than today's gun laws, but does little to keep a reasonable person from obtaining a gun if they so choose.
                    As far as assault rifles, my understanding is that the "grip" on the barrel is different.  I think this difference makes it look more menacing (psychological issue) and allows the user to "spray" multiple targets more easily (control issue).  Even if these are considered minor encouragement to use for violence, these should be banned for the public.

                •  A responsible gun owner would (0+ / 0-)

                  take all of their weapons and steamroll them, and every other gun save the military and law enforcement. Find another hobby.

              •  I will also boycott (7+ / 0-)

                any business that allows open carry/assault rifles. These cowboys aren't required to show permits when they walk in the store. There is no personal/police who check permits either. So the next gang of people who walk in with their assault rifles slung over their shoulders, I am just supposed to ASSUME they are upstanding citizens? And not real "bad guys" who want to murder and rob? Most of these folks are not well dressed businessman, but long hair, tattooed, sloppy dressed men. You know how men want to blame women who are raped for the way they are dressed? Well, it goes both ways. And if establishments don't see this, then it's to their own peril. I don't know any young family who wants to shop, eat, whatever with a bunch of gun toting people. I hear Target is on the skids....they and others better listen to the more civilized people and ban guns.

                •  "Guns everywhere Georgia" (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  okpkpkp, Yonit
                  There is no personal/police who check permits either.
                  The law passed in Georgia which takes place July 1 states that no police officer is even allowed to ask for a permit!

                  Yes, now open carry guns can be taken into churches, libraries, children's playgrounds, non-secure areas of airports, basically everyplace EXCEPT the state capitol.

                  We have already had an incident where a guy drove 50 miles to be near a kid's playground.  Soccer field, children on swings..and he walked around the perimeter and THROUGH the playground for hours three days in a row.  Finally a sheriff asked him to "Please leave as the children are frightened."

                   I hate Georgia.

                  •  SIERRA VISTA'S GOD IS TOO WEAK (0+ / 0-)

                    Went to a church in Sierra Vista AZ where my sister was the organist.  I just happened to notice her husband had a pistol under his coat!  He along with others were "carrying" because  they "weren't about to let any low life disrupt or try shooting up anyone in this church".  It wasn't a comforting thought that armed men might start a shooting match in the building.

                    Later, my sister divorced this clod when he, in a drunken rage, pushed her son and daughter around then pulled his pistol on them.  I'm glad  he is history.  He spent two years in the Pen and now has a felony record.

                    OH YES - - ANOTHER GOOD GUY WITH GUNS.

                    Banks will only lend you money if you can prove you don't need it.

                    by olegar on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 07:07:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  It doesn't matter who left the gun there. (8+ / 0-)

              The point is that a gun could be left in plain sight and within a child's reach in a place that is attractive to children.  Yes, it may have been sneaked in make gun nuts look bad, but most people who would want to discredit the gun nuts think that they have already done a good job of making themselves look bad.  

              The real point here is that this open carry crap makes it virtually impossible for law enforcement officers or rent-a-cops to provide security for the rest of us, and accidents do happen.  All one needs to do iis reach any of the gunfail posts to see how many guns are "forgotten" in public places.  Open carry laws increase the potential for that type of gunfail considerably.

              •  how many cell phones are lost or misplaced? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                when an AR-15 or Colt .45 becomes just another fashion accessory, and one that is a bit cumbersome (while toy shopping for instance), it can be expected to be lost or misplaced that much more often.
                Just another potentially lethal side effect of this stupidity.

                Last full month in which the average daily temperature did not exceed twentieth-century norms: 2/1985 - Harper's Index, 2/2013

                by kamarvt on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 04:20:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Responsible ownership (8+ / 0-)

              TexasBill, I appreciate your viewpoint. I am not comfortable around guns and would generally avoid some businesses that invite them (e.g. places that also serve alcohol), but as you've suggested it is my choice.

              I've met a few responsible gun owners over the years; they triple-check, record and lock up their weapons. They worry about theft because they do not want their guns to fall into the wrong hands. One person I know was designing his gun exit strategy after he decided the risks of owning them outweighed the practical advantages for him.

              All valid stuff, but none of this speaks to what the Open Carry Texas movement has been doing, which could be aptly renamed 'Open Confrontation Texas'. A few nights ago, Jon Stewart nailed it when he showed how Open Carry and Stand Your Ground are two conflicting ideologies on a collision course. NRA was right to call out Open Carry Texas; and then totally, dangerously wrong in their retraction a day later.

              •  I don't agree with Open Carry Texas' tactics (8+ / 0-)

                My disagreement is on two grounds (other than the obvious - it's stupid; it's rude; it's so beyond the pale that it's out of sight):

                First, they have no right to conduct a political demonstration on private premises without the owner's permission. And failing to inform the owner of exactly what is planned is the same, or worse, than not getting permission at all.

                Second, they are not only upsetting the very people they want to persuade, they are not even delivering what is supposed to be their message. Last time I looked Open Carry Texas was trying to get the laws that prohibit the open carry of a handgun repealed. What does the brandishing of a rifle or shotgun of any type have to do with that?

                Furthermore, I am embarrassed by the NRA apology for the negative comments. Pro-gun or not, bad behavior is bad behavior and it shouldn't be condoned.

                These people are already sufficiently simple-minded to think that invading a restaurant waving guns is a swell idea that's guaranteed to win converts. They're also impervious to the reality that the score is currently 100%: they've gotten kicked out of every enterprise and had every business reevaluate its policy on allowing guns on the premises without a single favorable outcome.

                Chris Cox had no business whatsoever patting them on the back and censuring anybody for calling them weird.

              •  It's your right (3+ / 0-)

                It is your personal right to choose to avoid guns and places where they might be present.

                While it isn't embodied in the Constitution, I believe it's still a right. If it's my right to keep and bear arms, it also has to be your right not to. And I shouldn't think any the less of you for that choice.

                You don't have the right to take my guns and I don't have the right to require you to have one. And if one fights for one right, they must fight for the other. It's called "freedom" and it is well worth defending.

            •  Thankyouthankyouthankyou (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Argent47, bobcat41702, Yonit

              Always a pleasure to meet another seriously safety-conscious gunner. In my case, locking the action open and checking that it's unloaded isn't merely the first thing I do, it's also often the second and third things, too...just to make sure that a lifetime of doing this reflexively hasn't accidentally lead me to imagine I'd already done it.

              Having a whole lot of liberal citified friends, plus my own private range on our farm, I enjoy introducing curious non-gunners to marksmanship. Gotta love that look on their faces the first time they actually hit the target from more than 3 feet away. The fact that they know, going into it, that I'm not nuts, helps them relax, and the fact that I'm an absolute safety freak makes them feel both safe and respectful. I have a routine for breaking in newbies:

              First I ask them to help me get the guns out of the safe. Nothing quite says "I'm not crazy" like an expensive, well-used gun safe. Then I drill them in the lock-the-action-and-check-it's-unloaded thing. Then I hand them the gun, and they immediately forget, so I rip 'em a new one and try again.

              Then I get out the tools and disassemble the gun as they watch, and run a couple of patches through the bore, show them the firing mechanism, have them inspect the barrel. Hey look! There's parts inside! It's a machine! Who knew?

              Then we drill on the Three Laws. (1) Never point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. (2) Always treat every gun like it's loaded. (3) Off target, off trigger.

              Then out to the range, where we work on loading. When they're not looking I slip a couple of dummy rounds into the mag.

              We talk about the sacredness of the firing line, and that I am damn well the range master, and that they don't so much as get to scratch their butt without asking me permission first if they're on the firing line.

              Usually at about this point I ask them, rather forcefully, to please stop pointing the damn gun at my foot. "Law 1, remember?" and to get their damn finger off the trigger; "Law 3, remember?" Rinse and repeat.

              Then after all the usual stuff about how to hold it, how to use the sights or the scope, etc., we're off to the races. Big grins all around. Woot! Then they run into the dummy round in the mag. This gives us the opportunity to talk about how to handle a misfire properly, plus allows me to point out that the gun recoiled even though it didn't fire...because they're jerking with anticipation. Upon learning this, their accuracy usually improves dramatically.

              Finally we police our brass and it's home again, clean the guns (hey, you shot it; you clean it) and lock 'em back up.

              Not many of these folks actually become gunners, but I huge percentage of them will ask, the next time they visit, if we can go shooting again. Heck yeah!

              Gun rights? OK, let's start this discussion with the same words the 2nd Amendment does: "well regulated"

              by DocDawg on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 06:03:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your three laws (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DocDawg, JimB37

                My dad, who is retired NYPD, and before that a Recon Marine, told me that the #1 rule is to never point a gun at anyone you're not prepared to kill. Because handguns (we were talking about handguns, not hunting rifles) are designed to kill people. Not to disarm them, or to disable them--it is very, very difficult to disable someone intentionally with a handgun. That if you point a gun at someone without being sure you can kill that person, you're just putting yourself in more danger, because the gun may then be taken away from you. I've never felt a need to own a gun, but I'm lucky enough to live in a safe area.

                •  Your dad's point (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JimB37, Yonit

                  about the near-impossibility of disabling (rather than killing) someone with a handgun is a truth that most people don't understand, and that in turn leads to a lot of misunderstanding about police use of guns. "Why didn't the cop just shoot him in the leg instead of killing him?" Because at any reasonable distance, and especially when you're jacked up in a life-or-death situation, your odds of actually hitting a small target like a leg are virtually nil. This is why they always aim for center-of-mass. "Why did the cops shoot 30 rounds at the assailant instead of just one?" Because 29 of those rounds were extremely likely to miss.

                  Yes, there are bad, unjustifiable police shootings...too many of them. But when a situation goes far enough south to actually justify a police shooting, it is so easy, and so unfair, to second-guess the LEO.

                  Gun rights? OK, let's start this discussion with the same words the 2nd Amendment does: "well regulated"

                  by DocDawg on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 06:53:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks for adding this (0+ / 0-)

                    I've always wondered about it and thought it might be difficult to try to just aim for the leg.  But we all watch so many movies and such where they make it seem like virtually anyone can just aim and hit wherever they want (except of course in all those other scenes where the bad guys miss nearly every time they shoot at the good guy).

                    Your explanation really makes sense.  Thanks for sharing!

                    Understanding is limited by perspective. Perspective is limited by experience. America is a great place to live but it limits our ability to understand.

                    by CindyV on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:07:13 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This thread explains the risk of "guns everywhere" (0+ / 0-)

                      Georgia is seeking to be the poster child for gun nut behavior. Stand your ground, open carry, and shall issue concealed carry licenses are all the law.

                      As the above comments explain, folks who are gun totin' and brandishing put themselves and those around them in a position of presuming or fearing that lethal force may be unleashed at any moment.

                      Brandishing a weapon is a serious matter--if pointed at another, it's felony assault with a deadly weapon, but if just pointed at the ground, it's a split second from lethal threat, if that is the intent. Under stand your ground or castle law, both on the books here, you can shoot to kill--there is not other kind of shooting, as the above comments explain--and it's all lawful. The folks with guns and even with concealed carry permits aren't required to have been instructed in these truths. Wild west crazy.

                      Georgia's Association of Chief's of Police opposed the GOP Governor and GOP House Speaker pushing through the "guns everywhere" law, as it is certain to endanger officers, and citizens when officers are on edge.

                      What madness. Lock and load is the new normal?

              •  Thankyouthankyouthankyou (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I wish we had more people like you and TexasBill.  You both are a credit to gun owners everywhere.  It's good to know that there are some truly responsible gun owners out there who don't get enough publicity to offset those who seem to be "wing nuts."

            •  Pro-gun; anti-gun: this is just stupid. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Very good response.  If everybody had a common sense approach such as you described, we might not have this wide chasm between the pro-gun and anti-gun positions.  

            •  Right On! (0+ / 0-)

              This is what I was taught by military instructors.  I agree 100%.

          •  Cleaning your "gun" (0+ / 0-)

            What rational person cleans his weapon while it's still loaded?  'nuf said.

            •  "Cleaning your gun" is a euphemism for suicide. (0+ / 0-)

              Having been married to a police officer and also a military officer people who kill themselves while "cleaning their guns" are committing suicide and want their family members to get the life insurance (even though most life insurances will still pay out after paying premiums for two years.)

              It is a way to get benefits for the family and it is a way not to "appear to be a coward for taking one's own life."

              Hey I think that everyone should be able to end their own life as the state of Washington allows...but that prejudice still exists.

              I know. Because my spouse committed suicide 4 years ago...

              •  sorry but (0+ / 0-)

                when I kill myself, and I will, having a neurological, degenerating brain disease with no treatment available, being almost bed ridden now at 60 years of age, I would really be an asshole if I left my wife my blood and brain matter to clean up. No. I will be taking an overdose that will put me to sleep forever. No muss, no fuss. All they can do now is treat my pain with Mary-Jane and Morphine so it won't be long now.  And of course I have discussed this with my wife. She just wants to be able to say goodbye.

        •  No, the problem is guns not people (18+ / 0-)

          If we take everyone's guns — and I'm being driven to that position by people like you when I used to be fairly indifferent — the murder rate in the U.S. will plunge. It will be almost impossible to kill 20 people in a school all at once.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

          by anastasia p on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:29:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tell that to the families (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            in Japan who lost about thirty children to a slasher with a knife.  Seems guns are very much verboten in Japan, at least for the common man, but that doesn't stop the true nuts from  committing murder on a mass scale when they are truly ready to do so.

            •  Knives don't kill beyond arm's length (30+ / 0-)

              Bullets, on the other hand, can travel thousands of yards, and do NOT broadcast a warning they are coming, nor do they have a brain to avoid 'innocent bystanders".

              But how about we clamp down on guns first, starting with assault weapons, which are NOT built for target practice OR deer season, and see where we go from there, hmm?

              America's LAST HOPE: vote the GOP OUT in 2014 elections. MAKE them LOSE the House Majority and reduce their numbers in the Senate. Democrats move America forward - Republicans take us backward and are KILLING OUR NATION!

              by dagnome on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:06:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Guns don't kill (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                but if shot into the air they can injure or even kill. What goes up must come down. Good sense when a gun is touched is important. Children don't have that.

                •  Kids and guns (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Agreed that kids should not have access.
                  But you have idiots  like the guy who brought out a gun at a picnic and the kid got a hold of an automatic gun and ended up killing someone.

                  •  I hear you both - and agree - it's a problem (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Prickly Pam, CatKinNY, Naniboujou, JimB37

                    from where I sit, the gun isn't so much of the problem as the person who may or may not be controlling the trigger - HOWEVER - LOOSE ACCESS to guns, and too many guys freely being sold just exacerbate the issue. and make it MORE likely that a gun might accidentally get into the hands of someone who doesn't have self-control, or a proper respect for the immediate fatality that guns make possible.

                    Whether it's an idiot, a child, or a delusional nut job with an axe to grind about something, immediate access to a gun is NOT a good thing - I believe we are all agreeing here - wish we oculd get the NRA to stop with their "sell more at all costs" philosophy. More guns are NOT the answer

                    America's LAST HOPE: vote the GOP OUT in 2014 elections. MAKE them LOSE the House Majority and reduce their numbers in the Senate. Democrats move America forward - Republicans take us backward and are KILLING OUR NATION!

                    by dagnome on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 04:01:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  What goes up must come down (0+ / 0-)

                  A bunch of criminal types arrived at my great granddad's farm in several cars to cause trouble. A very religious man, nonetheless, he always wore a sidearm. He drew it and fired a warning shot into the air. The bullet went up, came down and killed one of the criminals. The sheriff came out and ruled that it was an accidental death since it was, after all, a warning shot.
                  They were there to abduct my great uncle's new girlfriend who had once lived with one of them. They wanted to help their buddy get his old g/f back. Shortly thereafter, they caught my great uncle walking down a dirt road and hit him over the head with a tire iron. This reduced him to a rather vegetative state and he spend the rest of his live in the county home.
                  Fortunately for him, he died there before Reagan took office. When the county homes were closed, without any sort of replacement, the poor, damaged people there became the first of the modern homeless problem. Disabled veterans soon flocked to join them.

            •  Can you link to that? (36+ / 0-)

              I find stories about two attacks in Japan. In one, 29 people were stabbed, but only four died (14%). In the other, 23 were stabbed and eight died (35%). And on the same day as Newtown, 22 kids were stabbed in China. None died (0%). It is tragic that these things happened, but look at how many survived these attacks.

              At Sandy Hook, 30 people total were shot, 28 died. That's 93%. The difference is obvious. The difference, is a gun.

              "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

              by tb92 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:50:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry - Good & Evil ARE binary states. (0+ / 0-)

                There is no such thing as a compromise between their meanings.

                •  Good and Evil are binary states... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bobcat41702, JimB37

                  Both are scalar, not binary.
                  Food stamps make it possible to provide necessary nutrition to millions of children who might otherwise grow up brain- damaged from chronic hunger.
                  However, we have seen a black market develop in food stamps. The going rate seems to be about fifty percent of face value. The kids go hungry and mommy gets her meth.
                  We moved on to WIC for the most vulnerable. Only the parent, providing ID, can use the WIC vouchers and then only for limited varieties of food.
                  Are food stamps purely good? No.
                  Are food stamps purely evil?   No.
                  They do more good than harm, obviously, but anything can be abused.
                  More to the point, some actions may be more nearly binary than others, depending on the particular action involved and the words used to describe it.
                  People are a little less binary than actions. There are people who are mostly good who do a few things which are wrong. One ancient religious scholar recommended doing good deeds on a large scale to balance the bad things we do on a smaller scale.
                  The imitation of this would be a clear scalar. The Koch Brothers engage in a lot of large-scale evil actions. On the other hand, they just contributed twenty five million dollars to the United Negro College Fund. That is an act of goodness even if the purpose is to distract from the pure evil of their Keystone XL Pipeline.  There are tar sands pipelines in Michigan. Leaks from one of them have destroyed the Grand River as a recreational resource. The health department has surrounded the river with fences and warning signs. A river people used to kayak in is now toxic. The owners of the pipeline have obviously not cleaned up the mess the made and nobody is making them clean it up. This Keystone abortion crosses major aquifers which people use for their drinking water. It needs to be stopped.
                  Yes, there would be some good to come from it .. a few hundred temporary jobs, and phenomenal profits for the Koch Brothers, but we can see that most of those profits will just be hoarded.

                •  Good and evil are the ends of a range. (0+ / 0-)

                  And most of us fall somewhere in the middle. To not acknowledge the shades of gray is unrealistic.

                  "The Democrats are the lesser evil and that has to count for something. Good and evil aren't binary states. All of us are both good and evil. Being less evil is the trajectory of morality." --SC

                  by tb92 on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 08:03:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Gun fondlers = intellectually dishonest (4+ / 0-)

              What the eff is wrong with you people?

            •  Imagine how many more would have been killed if (4+ / 0-)

              that knife had been an assault rifle.

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:34:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Source please (5+ / 0-)

              I'm not finding any reference to this online.  Would you please post your source?  Thank you.

              •  The Year of the Knife in East Asia (0+ / 0-)

                An article with a detailed listing of Asian knife attacks

                •  The Year of the Knife in East Asia (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Helena Handbag, Yonit


                  The article you cited proves very little or nothing.  It covers knife attacks going back more than a decade and over an entire region of the world, including Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and China.

                  That area embodies a population approaching 1.5 billion people, nearly five times our population, but the actual death rates from those reported attacks don't come close to our own. Even then, the deaths cited for these knife attacks pale into insignificance compared to what we experience here in our own country.  

                  Did you happen to notice a comment by the author near the end of his article?  He stated, "It is very wise of East Asian authorities to categorically outlaw the possession of guns and rifles."  Now they need to shift their attention to a great but far less lethal means of killing.

                  I am not advocating that we categorically outlaw guns. I am just pointing out that the author of the article you cited as support of gun ownership actually supports their being outlawed.

            •  Link? (6+ / 0-)

              You've been asked several times. If this is misinformation you need to own it and correct it.

              “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

              by Catte Nappe on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:25:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Uh, what? (6+ / 0-)
              Tell that to the families in Japan who lost about thirty children to a slasher with a knife.
              A quick Google search turns up nothing. There was the incident just a couple months back at a crowded China train station where 30 people were killed in a knife attack but that was carried out by ten different knife-wielding attackers, so...

              You may be thinking of the Osaka school massacre, in which a knife-wielding man killed 8. Nowhere near our record. Might have something to do with the difference between a knife and a semi-automatic rifle, eh?

              Seriously though, Google can save you alot of embarrassment.

            •  Osaka school massacre (6+ / 0-)

              He stabbed 23 people, 8 of whom died.  I'll take that over Adam Lanza's handiwork any day.

              Seriously, why can't you people see the difference between 23 casualties in total with 8 fatalities and 26 casualties, ALL of whom died?  

              It's the complete inability to see the world as it really is that is most frightening about gun nuts.  If you honestly can't tell the difference between dead and wounded, you have no business owning guns, and you prove to the rest of us that reasoning is impossible, so the 2nd amendment will need to be modified or go.

              •  And it's not as if they died of a single gunshot- (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WednesdaysChilde, Yonit, okpkpkp

                those little children's bodies were literally blown apart by the automatic weapon.  One body was practically cut in half from what I read on line written by a first responder.  The hateful violence must have been devastating to everyone who responded but especially to the families and the children who survived the attack.

            •  Why lie to make your point, Chet? (0+ / 0-)

              EIGHT children were killed. EIGHT. 13 children were wounded along with two teachers.
              Nothing like the "ABOUT THIRTY" you are trying to get us to believe. Gaud how I hate gunnut liars. They should be made to bow to Teddy Nut-gent's wishes...
              And YES!!! GUNS ARE very much FORBIDDEN in JAPAN like they should be HERE! Why in 2008, Japan had ZERO deaths by firearms. ZERO! The US of A had over 30,000. THIRTY THOUSAND, Chet. What could possibly make such a difference, you ask?  Not the Second Amendment, huh? But I'm taking to a tree stump that will never change. Too bad.

          •  Well, maybe not... (0+ / 0-)

            Looking at 517 separate school and spree shootings since 1901 yields some interesting insights.

            Whether they have been carried or not, guns have been plentiful in the United States for many years. There were some incidents with fairly high body counts, but those were generally involved with crime sprees, like Charles Starkweather's rampage in the 1950s. School shootings were most often the shooting of a teacher by a jilted lover or an accident. The highest death toll in a school shooting was Richard Whitman's 1966 sniping from the University of Texas tower in 1966.

            The number of incidents per year began rising slightly in the 1960s with spikes for the San Diego McDonalds massacre in 1984 and the Luby's Massacre in Killeen, Texas.

            The wave we are seeing now, which is unprecedented, began in 2006 and has escalated just about every year since then.

            The homicide rate was already declining, as was the number of U.S. households that claimed gun ownership.

            Military-style rifles have been with us for years. You used to be able to buy an M-1 Carbine with a 30-round magazine for about $20 by mail order. High-capacity handgun magazines? Introduced in 1935. Fully-automatic pistols? Used in World War I. The AR-15 "assault rifle" was sold to civilians beginning in 1963.

            Yet there were no Sandy Hooks; there were no rampages through college towns. Nobody "went postal."

            In the 20th Century (1901-2000), there were a total of 287 incidents, an average of 2.87 per year. From 2001 to today, there have been 616, an average of 44 incidents a year.

            So if, as has been claimed, fewer Americans own guns and, as FBI statistics show, the homicide rate has been declining, it stands to reason that guns aren't the cause of the dramatic increase in these shootings.

            So if it isn't guns, and it isn't people, what is it? Amazingly enough, a number of surviving perpetrators have said they were inspired by similar acts.

            Not one person in 114 years has ever said, "Well, I had this gun and I needed to do something with it. So I went out and killed a bunch of people."

            Every single one of these acts (except for a few accidents) was caused by a person choosing to use a weapon to kill or wound other people.

            •  Fewer people own guns (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              drmah, mmacdDE, sendtheasteroid, CatKinNY

              But those that do own them, own more of them

              A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet -- even though they account for less than 1% of the world's population
              Almost 48% of all individual gun owners reported owning four or more firearms, according to the survey.

              And an interesting take on the drop in the homicide rate

              The change in the number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay from 2001 to 2011. In 2001, 20,844 people suffered gunshot wounds that serious. In 2011, it was 30,759, The Wall Street Journal reports. But the murder rate is going down? Why is that? Because hospitals have gotten better at treating traumatic wounds.

              “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

              by Catte Nappe on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:05:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Digging a little deeper... (0+ / 0-)

                I learned something amazing: the number of gunshot injuries is just a fraction of stab or cut wound injuries.

                To avoid the "Johnny was running with scissors" incidents, I compared injuries that were the result of an assault or legal intervention (justified shootings, generally by police). In other words, criminal activity.

                From 2001 to 2012, a total of 595,871 gunshot victims were treated. During the same period, 1,526,058 people were treated for cut or pierce wounds.

                Averaged out over the period, the gunshot wound rate was 16.57/100,000; the cut/pierce wound rate was 42.4/100,000.

                When it came to wounds requiring hospitalization, most were gunshot victims, though there were more cut/pierce wound victims admitted to hospitals in 2001. However the lowest percentage for cut/pierce wounds was 34.3% in 2007 and there were only two years in which that percentage was below 40%. In 2012, the percentage was 41.5%.

                Looking at assault victims with gunshot wounds, we discover another anomaly: Whites, who own an estimated 44% of all civilian firearms, have an average rate of 3.32/100,000. Hispanics, owning an estimated 27% of guns, have an average rate of  22.03/100,000. Blacks, with an estimated 27% of civilian guns, have a rate of 60.32/100,000.

                All these numbers are based on data from the Center for Disease Control. There is no intent to point a finger at any particular ethnic group; just a desire to point out that there is a lack of correlation between the rate of gun ownership and criminal acts and to point out, one more time, that the problem isn't "gun violence," it's "violence."

                •  May I also point out (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Lethal "violence" is easier to accomplish with a gun than any other weapon, and a gun is far more often the cause of death based on FBI 2011 homicide stats.
                  Handguns         6,220
                  Rifles            323
                  Shotguns          356
                  Other guns    97
                  Firearms, type not stated        1,587
                  Knives or cutting instruments       1,694

                  “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                  by Catte Nappe on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 03:59:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's not limit ourselves (0+ / 0-)

                    Cherry-picking is fun, but I prefer to do it in a larger orchard.

                    In 2012, there were 1,736,280 victims of criminal violence, including homicides and wounds serious enough to justify emergency room treatment.

                    Guns accounted for 3.91% of that total, knives made up 8.91% of the total. Hands were the biggest contributor to the total.

                    Yes, firearms are more lethal but that does not seem to have deterred a large number of assailants from getting up close and personal with a knife.

                    Violence is violence. Of 443 episodes of school violence from 1900 to 2014, 26.4% resulted in no fatalities at all. But that doesn't make them any less of a concern.

                    •  Going out on a limb... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Catte Nappe

                      I'm guessing that more of the gun victims (compared with other non-gun incidents) were innocent bystanders, who were not even involved in the incident until shot.  Knives, fists, etc. would typically harm the direct participants, some very close to the incident, and anyone trying to break it up.  Gun victims could be across the road, in a car, upstairs, etc.  This makes it a different beast.
                      I have no quarrel with reasonable people owning guns for reasonable reasons (hunting, protection, etc.), but I think they need to demonstrate that they can handle it responsibly and safely.  I think your previous posts put you way inside that circle.

        •  The problem is people with guns (13+ / 0-)

          Granted that violent people will find ways to be violent, I'd rather fight off an attacker with a knife or fists.  Also, that attacker has to get closer to me in order to attack, and can't kill so many so fast.  I love guns for home defense.  But we have to sort out the responsible gun owner from the nut.  And right now, there are WAY too many irresponsible gun nuts.

        •  "Legitimate gun nut" (5+ / 0-)

          Is that like "legitimate rape?"

          Gun rights? OK, let's start this discussion with the same words the 2nd Amendment does: "well regulated"

          by DocDawg on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 12:22:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's no such thing as a "legitimate gun-nut" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            historys mysteries, sethtriggs

            because none of their "argument" is valid, even to the degree that it is absolutely and unshakably grounded on hot air.

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:36:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  "Legitimate gun nut" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Is that like "legitimate rape?"

            I presume you were just attempting to lighten the discussion a bit, but I still feel compelled to answer your question, nonetheless.

            Rape is against the law, so no rape can be considered legitimate.  However, being a gun nut is not against the law, so there really can be such a thing as a "legitimate gun nut."

            Of course, there is also such a person as a "legitimate rape" nut.  i think his name is Todd Akin.

        •  It is about people. I would venture that 80% of... (5+ / 0-)

          It is about people. I would venture that 80% of people would have shot someone if they'd have had a gun at the moment in time they were seeing red. I include myself. How many people have been so afraid that they would have used a weapon if they'd had one? Even rabbits would use a gun on predators. I think it would be cool if everyone could control themselves and stop trying to control others with weapons. So could all of you weapons positive people just put yours in a locked box high in your closet and save it until we've been invaded by bad guys?

          •  Solution: Arm your rabbits. (0+ / 0-)

            (to paraphrase Archie Bunker.)

            •  The problem with this idea is that... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JimB37, Yonit

              to a rabbit, anything bigger than itself appears to be a predator.

              To a person with a poor self-image, who has learned to see himself (or herself) as a victim, everyone is perceived as a persecuter to some degree or another.  The less control one has over one's self, the more control one wants to have over others.  Because a person has learned to view power as something one has over others, they have not learned to understand, or to want to share power WITH others.

              Because having power over others is their only option, people learn to believe that guns will give them power over other people.  Making others fear you does not set a person free, and usually leads to negative consequences for everyone, in the long run.

              To me, most of the problems in this culture are based on the fact that we teach people how to be either passive or aggressive, or both passive and aggressive.  Both passive and aggressive behaviors are based on disrespect, either for oneself or for others.  Assertive behavior is based on respect, both for oneself and others.

              How many people in this culture learn how to be assertive in dealing with others?  Where do you think this country would be if everyone learned how to be assertive?

              •  Assertiveness sounds too simple... (0+ / 0-)

                Big kudos on bringing this up.  This almost feels like the missing link explaining why the bully or the bullied can show up to school with a gun.
                While it annoys me to no end when the media/editorials make a big deal about people acting like victims, I think there is some truth to most people acting like victims at least part of the time.  It might be better to train/coach people to be assertive, as this is more likely to bring about lasting positive change.
                And respecting fellow citizens would be a big bonus for the US.  Many politicians seem to have lost that truth.

        •  But... (6+ / 0-)

          "You can take everyone's guns and the same crazy people will exist and find other ways to make life miserable for the more well balanced people in society."

          They'll be doing it without guns.

          •  But! - But! - But! -- (3+ / 0-)

            We should make it easier for them to kill as many as possible at one time -- it isn't likely they'll get a second chance opportunity to improve on their first effort!

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:39:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Propaganda -- (11+ / 0-)

          "If a gun control fanatic" -- I haven't seen any evidence that there is such.

          "The problem isn't really guns, it's people." -- the problem is people with guns.

          Primarily irresponsible people with guns.

          Irresponsible people push the NRA/gun industry lie that a gun that caused injury or death has nothing to do with the injury or death the gun caused.

          Let's contrast the propaganda with reality:

          1.  In law, the term "assault" is defined as the crime of, "Putting another in fear of bodily harm."

          No physical contact is necessary.

          2.  In law, pointing an UNLOADED gun at another is defined as the crime of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon."

          No physical contact is necessary.

          The fact that guns are dangerous weapons has been recognized in law since their invention; that is when gun control began.  

          The central element in the crime of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is the (UNLOADED) gun -- not the person pointing the gun -- and not the person at whom the gun is pointed.

          If the person pointing the gun were instead pointing his index finger, the likelihood of an injurious or deadly outcome is approximately zero.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:30:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pretzel Logic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            In the law, "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is assault committed with the use of a deadly weapon in the process. It's a form of aggravated assault.  

            As you mentioned, the victim doesn’t have to be physically harmed, the victim only needs to experience an “apprehension of imminent harm” in order to sustain an ADW charge. It’s enough if the assailant caused the victim to think that they’d be harmed by the weapon.

            Now, what is considered a "deadly weapon?" Firearms, of course, knives and martial arts instruments like nunchuku, throwing stars, swords, etc. In addition, depending on the case,  sticks, pipes, wrenches, hammers and other hand tools, along with other sharp objects, such as ice picks, and even the bare hands of masters of certain martial arts have been considered deadly weapons.

            Now here's where you're absolutely, 100%, totally and completely wrong: the central element in the crime of assault with a deadly weapon is the assault. The use of an instrument is an aggravating circumstance, but if there had been no assault, there wouldn't have been an aggravated assault. Furthermore, the use of the weapon is the aggravating circumstance, not the weapon itself.

            If the perpetrator sticks a finger in a coat pocket and persuades the victim it is a gun, a charge of aggravated assault can not only be brought, it can be sustained. Remember, the victim only need have a reasonable "apprehension of imminent harm" and believe the perpetrator had a gun or other weapon. In other words, it's what the victim believes that counts.

            Conversely, if the perpetrator actually had a gun, but did not use it or make the victim believe it was present, it would be possible to get an aggravated assault charge dropped, although the perpetrator could face additional charges for possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime.

        •  Yes, susceptible persons do the violence, BUT (6+ / 0-)

          the guns' EXISTENCE still gives them more destructive power, and is a definite enabler of action at all.

          And yes it absolutely IS worth it.

          Your right to freedom stops at the end of my nose.

          The net impact of guns on society in the REAL WORLD
          is undeniably negative.

        •  Can't see a gun control fanatic doing it (2+ / 0-)

          First, one has to consider the following:
          One goes out, shells out $500-$700 for the gun, an extra $20-$30 for bullets. Then, figures out how to load the magazine and weapon, only to endanger children in a store.

          Sorry, it's more likely someone was shopping and carrying concealed and didn't have it properly secured, so it fell out onto the shelf.
          Or, a mentally ill gun owner left it there.

          Either way, I hope that the owner is charged with felony child endangerment and is convicted. If not child endangerment, there are a handful of other felony charges that can be applied.
          Because, this multiple firearm owner never wants that person to be allowed to own a firearm ever again. A felony rap would work for that purpose.

          •  Wzrd - we just don't know (0+ / 0-)

            Anyone who knows anything about carrying a concealed firearm would never carry the specific handgun that was found in the Target store. It is too big and too heavy to conceal, which is why this event is such a mystery.

            Let's stop trying to blame this on some fictitious character and let the police find the real answer.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 05:21:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But what about somebody (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              who DOESN'T know anything about carrying a concealed firearm?

              Isn't it likely that they'll pick the biggest, baddest gun they can manage to pack into their waistband or pocket, and then AFTER they get somewhere figure out that it's a pain in the butt (probably literally) and put it somewhere for a minute - and forget it?

              Which is very likely what happened. By somebody who doesn't know a damn thing about carrying a concealed weapon.

          •  No, the gun in question is only around $160 (0+ / 0-)

            and about $50 used.  Also, it has not been confirmed that the gun was fully loaded, it might have had "only" a few bullets in it.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:07:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Crazy people, careless people, angry people (5+ / 0-)

          The damage they can, and do, cause is much greater when a gun is at hand than when one isn't. So it's not just the people.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 03:21:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm going to have to call Bullshit (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sendtheasteroid, debocracy, kamarvt, Yonit

          A gun is not a hairbrush - it's a weapon. Weapons are made to kill human or animal. I could see someone saying oh my gosh she killed her with a brush! an item that is not meant to harm but a guns are meant to harm. If they weren't people won't use them for protection nor would police and the armed forces have them issued. They are designed to kill the bullets are updated to cause as much harm as possible. It's so easy to kill with them because it an extension of a hand. I have seen gunshot wounds to every part of the body you can name from head to toe. Not all people that get shot or do the shooting are bad guys. If you consider all the suicides by gun more than half of those people would be alive, because most times it's a spare of the moment act. Most murders are committed by someone the victim knows. A good number of these murders are in the heat of the moment, how so many of those people wish they could take it back.
           I have seen so much waste of human lives. It's really ashame over twenty years and I remember all of them. All the souls probably fill three classrooms (3 rooms of 40 each) and that doesn't include the ones that survive. You think of a hospital with two operating rooms running at night that averages two gunshots per night. We aren't even counting the gun shots that come in during the day shift. Just one hospital that's a hell of a lot of shootings and people. There are at least eight hospitals in the city that can handle gun shoots. I was at the number one in the state for gun shots. Half of these people are wrong place wrong time, bullets don't carry names. With numbers like these in one large city I would say we have a big problem. Now people may not care about the people being shot and killed but it effects all of us, just think about the hospital bills. You round that off to about a couple hundred thousand each  some will say that's too high but you think- gun shot = ER visit, OR visit, about a week or more in the hospital not this doesn't include the cost of people you need to take care of of person injured that can bump the price up to a million easy. I'm not even talking about the critically injured. During the talks about gun control we don't talk about how much it costs to treat these people. This is  a topic that should be front and center in the gun control conversation because we all are paying the medical cost for gun injuries. No I can't links this is not part of a study but this is what a night at the job, all the death  leaves scars on one's soul. I love my job. if the death and injuries didn't effect me I won't be human. Sorry for making this so long.

          •  Thank you for adding this insight (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            From the perspective of the people who deal with the aftermath in hospitals.  This is a point that should be included in any discussion about the impact of guns in our society.

            Understanding is limited by perspective. Perspective is limited by experience. America is a great place to live but it limits our ability to understand.

            by CindyV on Sun Jun 08, 2014 at 09:25:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not that I really believe all people have the righ (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JimB37, Yonit

          to keep and bear but your logic is a little off. If no one owns guns then we will definitely have many less deaths by that method. You may use the idea that others may use other weapons. But with other weapons you have a chance to fight back.

        •  Oh, give me a break.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, Yonit
          Guns have never hurt anyone without the direct participation of people.
          I get real tired of this argument. Neither have nukes, cluster bombs, military drones, hand grenades, land mines, high explosives and a few million other things. And yet, unlike guns, those things are either illegal for non-military to own, at all, or are limited to a) how big you can have (in the case of explosives, and its 'not enough to do more than generally blow your own hand off'), and b) specific, highly controlled, uses. Yeah, the problem "is" humans. But somehow guns are the only bloody thing that is deemed both dangerous, and not an absolute necessity (which do most people need more, a car, or a gun, seriously?), which the people the get a hard on for thinks it makes sense for everyone to be waving around all the time.

          And, seriously, enough with the arm chair psychology too. There are endless numbers of things, including voting for the current Republican party, or going to church to worship one of 100,000 contradictory versions of what is supposed to be the same entity (never mind the other 99,999 contradictory versions), which I really wish qualified as a form of insanity. The problem is, people do unbelievably stupid, cruel and irrational things, all the time, without being "insane", or even noticeably imbalanced. Its part of the problem with the idea that we just let the sane people have guns, and keep them out of the hands of nuts. There is no way to do it, at all, even if the NRA, lawyers, and everyone else where not undermining attempts to at least do something about the tiny fraction that can be identified with any level of accuracy anyway.

          This guy might have just been distracted by something going on in his life, stupidly took his gun out, for some idiot reason, set it down, then wandered off and forgot it there, like most people do with their cell phone, keys, etc. Its pure speculation at this point what happened, and as unlikely as my scenario may be, is not *that* more unlikely than, say, a stupid politician pulling out their pink gun, and waving it in the face of someone in an elevator, while babbling about gun rights - an event that **did* in fact happen. That some idiot might, even on a toy isle, accidentally leave the thing behind... isn't beyond all realm of plausibility. Its exactly the kind of shit you would *expect to see happen, if, say, every idiot on the planet had one, and more than half of them where absent minded, and not qualified to own a credit card "responsibly", never mind a fire arm. And, the odds of any one determining that they shouldn't have a gun, when we will happily give them a credit card... yeah, didn't think so.

        •  Hunting dogs (0+ / 0-)

          have been known to fire off rounds killing and/or injuring their "masters" Check with your state's Dept of Fish & (game) Wildlife. THEY have the statistics.

      •  Even if it were a gun control advocate (10+ / 0-)

        the likelihood that he was acting in concert with an organized group attempting to influence the government to take action on gun control is virtually nil. So their whole "false flag" scenario is more proof they're completely insane. In fact, it was most likely an individual acting alone, no matter who it was. It's hard to picture any organized movement thinking this would be an effective gesture.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

        by anastasia p on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 10:34:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The "false flag" is the cover lie that these (7+ / 0-)

          open carry gangs are actually only about "protecting" people.  They are a radical effort to deploy fake -- private -- "militia" in public, in broad daylight; they already have a central "command" "organization" behind them.

          They are armed Brown Shirts.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:42:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A "False Flag" argument (6+ / 0-)

          in this case is merely projecting blame, same as the current crop of GOP politicians is so apt at doing. The proponents know it's a false argument when they spew it but they're dumb enough to think WE'RE dumb enough to believe they believe it. All it really serves to do is show the world what they're really like and what their goals are.

          It seems like the goal of the open carry narcissists is to get us so used to seeing them carrying their human-killing machines in public that one day 10 of them can walk into a college building or some other place full of unsuspecting people and no one will be alarmed - until 50 of them are lying dead on the floor.

      •  No one will be prosecuted (4+ / 0-)

        Since most guns are not registered with authorities it will be impossible to trace. Even if the owner is found he/she can say it was stolen. Gun registration  should be mandatory and if it is found that the person didn't, mandatory sentencing be applied no exclusions.

      •  Advocate, or armed for some other (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, Sorgfelt

        purpose...maybe the person who left it was there for robbery.  When I saw this, it reminded me of a show where the guy makes one bad decision, followed by a moment of reason when he couldn't psyc himself up. He paced up and down the isles and then walked out. Later, his gun was found on a shelf. Best decision he ever made!

      •  Amazing (10+ / 0-)

        that we demand responsible behavior from operators of motor vehicles - which can, and often do - become deadly weapons.  We make them get licensed, prove they can safely operate the vehicle, and that they know the rules of the road.  We make sure that they can see adequately to drive, or wear corrective lenses while driving.

        All in the name of making the public - both the motoring and the non-motoring public - safer.

        Yet any mention of requiring licensing and certification to own and operate a firearm - whose only purpose is to be a deadly weapon - and some people go crazy talking about fascism and everything else.

        Usually, it is THOSE people who want to use guns to impose fascism on everyone else...ever notice that?  They want the "freedom" to deprive you of yours.

        What the hell is wrong with forcing people to prove they can safely operate a gun, so that they do not accidentally shoot themselves or someone else...and what is wrong with making sure people who are a true danger to themselves or others...are restircted from legally owning such weapons - weapons which make it easier for them to harm themselves or someone else?

        Why is this not just common sense?

      •  The shoe doesn't fit... (0+ / 0-)

        Anyone that is a gun control advocate has the psychosocial mindset of saving lives, not ending them. I think this guy that left the gun there is simply like a fire bug, he just did it to get off on any calamity that might have occurred and be put on the news channels. Yes, there are some people that sick. Lastly, the creep might not even be some big gun advocate, just a sick demented individual.

        If you like bicycles, check out the newest and coolest products at my site, "" You can also find my products at e-Bay under the name, "Ziggyboy." See all the products on my "See seller's other items" link.

        by JohnnieZ on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 11:41:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  child endangerment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        will get them locked up, maybe not for decades however.

    •  Obviously there was something off about the gun (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      being there.

      It shouldn't have been.

      Let's not get skunked: the gun appears to have originated with someone other than the person who may have left it.

      Planted?  Could be.  But could have been planted as readily (who would mostly like have a "spare" gun?) by a gun-nut.  What "better" way to send the message that everyone needs guns than to have someone killed with one?

      The fact is that we don't know, and there is no reason to speculate about it: I think we'll know soon enough.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Sat Jun 07, 2014 at 02:11:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Open Carry (0+ / 0-)

      Dumb question but if this guy had been open carrying his gun instead of concealing it would that not have made it easier to figure out who had left it for sure. Carrying a concealed weapon is still legal, but personally I think open carry makes a lot more sense. As long as your not waving it around, which IS illegal, exactly how is a piece of metal on someones side SCARY?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site