Skip to main content

Gun with trigger at center of image
It's time for another entry in our continuing GunFAIL series, and I'm adopting another few changes in format. First, I'm setting aside the domestic violence and murder-suicide reports entirely, although I think they're an especially important category to pay attention to. They deserve coverage, of course, and they do account for a significant portion of gun deaths each week. And I still believe that they represent an important category of GunFAIL, particularly when guns are purchased ostensibly to protect the family and instead end up killing the family. But tracking them is not only enormously taxing emotionionally, but they're not exactly central to the main point of this feature, which really is that even well-meaning and well-intentioned gun owners surprise themselves with accidents far more than we think, and certainly far more often than many of them will admit.

The second change in format takes me back to my preferred approach to presenting these stories, that is, with a one line story of my own. Each entry still includes a link to the original reporting, so you can still get the dry facts of the incidents there.

Even with this new restriction on what sorts of GunFAIL make the cut for this series, I was able to find 50 new examples for you in this entry, the vast majority of which took place just in the week since publication of GunFAIL IV.

Before moving on to the list, I want to acknowledge some other great sources of similar information. Right here on Daily Kos, we have Tom Begnal's series, "Another Day in the (gun crazy) U.S.A." Also among us in the blogosphere are the folks behind Slate's cooperative venture with @GunDeaths, the Today's Accidental Shootings blog, and the OhhShoot blog. In the mainstream media, kudos to Joe Nocera of the New York Times, and NBC News for giving in-depth and continuing coverage to these stories. I like to think we may have had a little something to do with encouraging it, and proving the existence of a "market" for it, so to speak.

And now, this week's Dishonor Roll, below the fold.

  1. TYLER, TX, 1/16/13: Gimme all your money and no one gets hurt! Except me! KA-POW!
  2. PARMA, OH, 1/25/13: I have a few minutes to spare. I think I'll tidy up this .40 cal... BLAM! D'oh!
  3. NORTH STONINGTON, CT, 1/26/13: You know what would be a great idea to prove that responsible gun ownership is still a good idea in a state recently traumatized by mass shootings? Some random cow shootings! And hey, let's lie to the cops and try to hide the gun, too. The NRA is gonna love this!
  4. HOLLY HILL, SC, 1/30/13: Don't know why she had a gun. Don't know what she was doing with the gun. Only know that she's now dead.
  5. HAMPTON, VA, 2/03/13: The other thing that can sometimes stop a bad guy with a gun is another bad guy with a gun.
  6. NEWINGTON, CT, 2/04/13: Go ahead, make my pizza!
  7. DES MOINES, IA, 2/05/13: He jumped me! He came from outta nowhere! Who did? I did!
  8. KIRKSVILLE, MO, 2/07/13: What part of "concealed" do you concealed carry ninjas not understand?
  9. CROSSVILLE, IL, 2/07/13: Aren't these really just the kind of folks you want "protecting their family" with 10 guns?
  10. HUNTINGTON, TX, 2/07/13: Gunwin's Law: The longer the argument goes on, the greater the chances you'll fire your guns.
  11. MEMPHIS, TN, 2/07/13: At this point, when you hear that a 16-year-old and a 15-year-old are getting together and there's a gun there, you can pretty much bet that before the day is done, there will be a... KA-POW! Yep.
  12. COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 2/08/13: Wanna see my antique shotgun? What a beaut, huh? Been in the family for... KA-BLAM!
  13. MT. SHASTA, CA, 2/08/13: Best. GunFAIL. Ever. At least in terms of the target. Home invader pistol whips victim, but ends up shooting himself in the leg doing it.
  14. FAYETTEVILLE, AR, 2/08/13: What with all these school shootings, I'd better protect myself while on campus with my trusty... POW! Ow! Damn it!
  15. COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 2/08/13: No, really! Someone really did jump me! OK, you got me. I'm lying, too. I dropped a gun and shot myself through both legs. But I was responsible in doing so! Freedom!
  16. FORT LEONARD WOOD, MO, 2/08/13: Concealed carry ninja successfully ends the wild rampage of his own foot!
  17. MEMPHIS, TN, 2/08/13: I swear, I didn't know it was loaded! Not any of the three times I shot you!
  18. TUNNELTON, WV, 2/08/13: Hey, we're 11 and 14 years old, and you say you want to see this gun that belongs to the registered sex offender whose house we're in, and who's prohibited by law from owning this weapon? Well, OK. I mean, it's not like this situation could get any worse, right? Oops! Clunk! BLAM!
  19. PALATINE, IL, 2/08/13: You never know when these German Shepherds are gonna "go native." Better shoot him before he turns into one of those zombie coyotes!
  20. RIVERTON, UT, 2/09/13: Hello, 911? I was cleaning my knife when it suddenly went off and stabbed my friend! Haha! Just kidding, that could never happen! It was a gun.
  21. COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 2/09/13: Dude, don't worry. What are the chances of a third accidental shooting right here in Colorado Springs inside of 30 hours? BLAM!
  22. EASTVALE, CA, 2/09/13: Patriotic 8-year-old exercises his Second Amendment right to take out the tyrants under the floorboards.
  23. HORIZON CITY, TX, 2/09/13. You'll never guess how this guy shot himself in the leg. OK, you got me! He was cleaning it when it suddenly went off! Because it was still loaded! Dang, you're good at this!
  24. IMPERIAL, CA, 2/09/13: Bad news: a pastor and parishoner of the local church were examining a gun when... well, you know. Good news: discounted burial!
  25. INDEPENDENCE, MO, 2/09/13: Whew! Finished cleaning my gun without shooting myself! Here, take a look at it, honey! BLAM!
  26. EAST GARDEN CITY, NY, 2/09/13: The right of the people to accidentally blow a hole in the plumbing and flood their apartment building shall not be infringed.
  27. BALDWIN, PA, 2/10/13: Just a quick reminder that sometimes, even if you're trained for this sort of thing, you miss and hit the wrong person.
  28. MUSKINGUM CO., OH, 2/10/13: After a little target shooting, I sometimes like to save the last bullet to ventilate my hand.
  29. DAYTON, OH, 2/10/13: Yeah, I was totally breaking up a fight between a World Champion MMA fighter and a member of SEAL Team 6, and I got shot! OK, I'm another one of these liars. I shot myself.
  30. BUTTE, MT, 2/10/13: Guys! Break it up! Don't fight! It's incredibly dangerous, given that one of you has a... BLAM!
  31. MCBRIDGE, MI, 2/10/13: This never happens, because safety! So shut up, you whiners!
  32. WASHINGTON, IL, 2/10/13: Knock knock! Who's there? Guy cleaning his gun. Guy cleaning his gu... BLAM!
  33. HARRISBURG, PA, 2/10/13: Wanna see a stolen gun? Check it... KA-POW!
  34. COVINGTON, OH, 2/10/13: Let's do a little target shooting! Who gives a flying #@*& where the bullets go if we miss? This is America! Amirite or what?
  35. MEMPHIS, TN, 2/11/13: No one could have predicted that a 4-year-old would find a gun and kill himself with it.
  36. DAUPHIN, PA, 2/11/13: Stay back or I'll shoot myself! In the arm!
  37. SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 2/11/13: It was Monday, so it was time for another law enforcement officer to shoot himself during a firearms training exercise.
  38. CHARLOTTE, NC, 2/11/13: No one could have predicted that another 4-year-old would find a gun and shoot herself with it.
  39. ALAMEDA, CA, 2/11/13: A man robbed at gunpoint goes for his own gun, gets shot. See, if you're already at gunpoint, you're kind of stuck.
  40. MADISONVILLE, KY, 2/11/13: I didn't shoot anyone or anything. I'm a responsible gun owner. I even have a concealed carry permit. What's this 9mm casing doing on the floor, and why is there a bullet hole in the wall? I dunno. But whatever it was, it must've been an accident. Which I don't remember. Or something. Hey, why am I being arrested?
  41. WATERBURY, CT, 2/11/13: Armed guards for schools are a great idea, because armed guards are trained and never do anything stupid with their guns that might invite disaster.
  42. BALTIMORE, MD, 2/12/13: Tuesday. Law enforcement officer shot in the head during gun training exercise. The ninth officer accidentally shot in as many days, and the seventh shot at the practice range.
  43. EL PASO CO., CO, 2/12/13: Dude, you want some weed? Dude, you want a shot? Dude, you want a shot in the back?
  44. NEWPORT NEWS, VA, 2/12/13: Another responsible gun owner shoots himself, but tells the cops he was robbed & attacked. Ho hum.
  45. BUNNELL, FL, 2/12/13: He was "messing around with the gun and it accidentally went off. Just wait until he has to clean it!
  46. MOBILE, AL, 2/12/13: I'm giving up accidentally shooting myself for Lent. But for now, it's still Mardi Gras! BLAM!
  47. TIGARD, OR, 2/13/13: I hate you, leg! You are a tyrant among limbs! FREEDOM!
  48. ROME, GA, 2/13/13: Stop me if you've heard this one before. Guy brings his pistol to the local diner. Takes it out for some unknown reason. Goes to put it back in his holster and then... I'll give you one guess what ended up in his left ankle. Any ideas?
  49. FT. SMITH, AR, 2/14/13: Roses are red. Violets are blue. If I smoke meth and play with guns, I might accidentally shoot you. Happy Valentine's Day, Auntie!

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:30 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Again, staggering cproof that guns (47+ / 0-)

    do not make us safer. They do not make their owners safer. Nor do they make those of us who are surrounded by gun owners any safer.

    It amazes me how many of the incidents occur with such regularity. And that until David began running these features, I had no real understanding of how common it was.

    "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

    by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:38:06 AM PST

    •  Over 95% of the time that a gun goes off (18+ / 0-)

      it shoots someone that is not a "bad guy". Leave it up to gun nuts not to understand this. I really dont care if they shoot themselves but usually it it someone that is a tragedy.  Dumb ignorant ranting dangerous as hell dipshits!

      I am pro-life. Bring our troops home ALIVE!

      by Doc Allen on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:56:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, no it isn't (5+ / 0-)

      This is evidence that dumbasses and guns are a bad mix.

      We're a nation of three hundred million, give or take, with nearly that many guns.

      In a week, we've had fifty-one incidents.

      Now, I agree, even if it were only five incidents, this is a social problem that needs to be addressed. Requiring gun owners to demonstrate that they understand safe gun handling and are capable marksmen (vis-a-vie licensing) is one way to do this.

      Another way to do this is, assuming you don't want to have to go to war against a recalcitrant NRA, is gun safety PSAs.

      "Don't clean your gun until you've made sure the chamber is empty."

      "Don't shoot your gun into the air on New Year's Eve. You could be charged with a felony."

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:24:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. no. no.. The answer is federal legislation to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishbone

        protect dumbshits from having accidents.

        Of course, almost ten times as many pedestrians are killed in accidents per year than by firearms discharge.  So, I hope President Obama's next whirlwind tour is to push for a ban on walking.

        •  95% of made up statistics are wrong. (12+ / 0-)

          According to the link you provided, in 2000 there were 5870 pedestrian deaths, 16,586 firearm suicides and 10,801 deaths from assault by firearm.

          •  Don't you just love when the (12+ / 0-)

            gun enthusiasts provide links which disprove their own theory?

            Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

            by JoanMar on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:26:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It was about accidents in response to above (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishbone

            comment.

            5870 pedestrian deaths
            776 Firearms discharge

            •  But... (8+ / 0-)

              no one I know of wants teachers to drive their cars into classrooms as a "safety measure."

              •  You cannot legislate away stupidity (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wishbone

                The point is - accidents happen. Everywhere.  All the time.  In a variety of situations.

                Your perfect nanny state would need to confiscate every firearm in the country.  Then, yes.. we would all be safer from gun accidents and safe from killing ourselves.

                But, that's not the country we live in.  Nor is it a practical solution.  So what the fuck is the point of these diaries?

                The point of these diaries is to keep the "guns are the enemy" frenzy going, isn't it?

            •  5870/776 = 7.56 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Havoth, Shotput8

              Aside from your rather generous rounding, a problem you have is gun accidents are sometime charged as crimes, in which case they may be counted as homicides.  Additionally, you will note near the bottom of the list in the link you provided you will see 230 "firearm discharge" deaths.  These are deaths where the intent is unknown.

            •  If you were honest about your "facts" you'd (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, rbird, Shotput8

              restrict your analysis to pedestrian deaths that involve people who were actually walking, and who were killed as a result of someone with legs who was walking.

              As opposed to people who were standing when they were struck by a car that jumped the sidewalk.

              Just playing along with your absurd...

            •  Unfortunately, we don't know (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Skookum, rbird

              There doesn't seem to be a good tracking system in place for deaths (let alone injuries) due to accidental firearm discharge. Some places track them well, some places track them poorly, and some places do not track them at all. There does not appear (on a quick google search) to be any federal requirement for reporting them, and many (the majority? again, I don't know) go without any charges being filed, either because someone shot himself or because there is no doubt that it was an accident (c.f. 'he shot his own son by accident, there's no point in filing charges, he's being punished worse than we can ever do'.)

              Vehicular manslaughter, on the other hand, is closely tracked. And charges are more or less always filed.

              I suspect that you're right that the number deaths by accidental firearm discharge are significantly smaller than those by vehicles. However, that's still a ridiculous way of looking at things. The number of deaths from nuclear weapons are likewise much smaller than the number of deaths from automobiles in any given year. This somewhat surprising statistic is because we have occasion to use nuclear weapons rather less often than we have occasion to use vehicles.

        •  So, accidents from all sources vs (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          awsdirector, JVolvo, rbird

          shootings from bullet gun sources (as opposed to shootings from flare guns, shootings from bows and arrows, shootings from dart guns, shootings from nail guns, shooting from staple guns, shootings from air horns, shootings from paint ball guns,...).

          If the right to vote can be regulated, why can't the right to possess a firearm be regulated in a way that reduces accidental shootings?

          Your logic is that guns are toys, and guns potential lethality has NO bearing on society's right and responsibility to provide a reasonably safe public sphere.

        •  I completely reject the idea (6+ / 0-)

          that we cannot reulate guns if:
          (a) There are other things that injure or kill people; or
          (b) a given regulation is not absolutely guaranteed to cure every problem guns might cause.

          Guns are manufactured to inflict harm. That is their purpose. Walking has beneficial purposes, even if sometimes people are injured while walking. Same with cars. Same with baseball bats. Same with all the other nonsensical items used to deflect from the fact that more guns make us less safe.

          "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

          by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:57:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Infinite times as many Americans are killed ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rbird

          by firearms discharge as by Iranian nuclear weapons. Therefore, there is no danger from Iran and we should lift all sanctions immediately.

          As an aside, welcome aboard, brand new user with no history. Have you been here before, perhaps under a different user id that was banned?

          A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

          by edg on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 01:08:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  However, it is postulated that far more such gun (10+ / 0-)

        fail incidents go unreported because - let's face it - many people out there are shitty gun owners.  I consider it similar to how most Americans consider themselves to be good drivers, when clearly most are not.  But at least with cars we have laws for safety and enforcement available to reign in the shitty drivers.

        Finally, I would emphasize the part of the diary where the author describes how he chose a small subset of this week's incidents in order to keep the diary size managable.

      •  At any given moment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kickemout, JVolvo

        Virtually anyone can act "like a dumbass" at any given time. That's kind of the point.

        Mix in alcohol and other substances, mental illness, physical illness with neurologica/neuropsychiatric compromise (I once saw a patient with herpes encephalitis who was convinced his shotgun was actually his wife), life stressors, moments of forgetfulness, and so on and so forth and you clearly have a situation where no one can be reliably trusted to have one of these human butchering devices at their unsupervised disposal 24/7.

        Requiring gun owners to demonstrate they can "safely handle" a gun (whatever that means) on Tuesday is literally no guarantee they can do it on Thursday and is completely meaningless.

        •  You're just plain wrong (0+ / 0-)

          Safety training is demonstrated to reduce the chance of accidents in virtually every setting. There's no reason to believe that it won't also happen with firearms.

          But clearly, you're not interested in that, which leads me to believe that you're interested in blanket prohibition. Fortunately, you will lose that fight, and convincingly so.

          ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
          My Blog
          My wife's woodblock prints

          by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:51:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One assumes this was tongue in cheek (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shotput8

            Please, cite the study proving that "safety training" can reduce the chance of a psychotic/drunk/high/encephalopathic person deciding to shoot someone.

            I'll wait.

            Obviously you are making things up as you go along.  Pretending there is a "safe" way for someone such as this to handle a deadly weapon is beyond absurd. It is clear you are so deluded by some kind of gruesome love for killing machines you've lost the capacity to think clearly about the issue at hand.

            •  Uh huh (0+ / 0-)

              I've been handling firearms safely for 20 years. I keep them pointing in a safe direction, I always treat them as if they are loaded, I never put my finger on the trigger unless I'm ready to fire, I always keep my backstop in mind. Accidents in 20 years: 0.

              So, yes, there is a way to handle firearms safely.

              Obviously, if someone in psychotic, drunk, or high, they shouldn't be around firearms at all. Neither should they be driving, handling heavy equipment, or making important life decisions. But that's not what this is about. This is about reducing the chances of an accident in bulk. And safety training will reduce the accident rate in people who are not incapacitated.

              Is that important to you, or not? See my comment elsewhere about what I think about people who trade blood for political clout.

              ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
              My Blog
              My wife's woodblock prints

              by maxomai on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 07:59:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Congratulations (0+ / 0-)

                You (and your neighbors and family) have been lucky, defying the odds for 20 years. I'm genuinely happy for you, but I certainly wouldn't want my kid playing at your house. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if you had an accident and ended up in the ER tomorrow.

                Simply put, the odds are that your streak of good luck won't continue. People are fallible and make mistakes. Even people who try hard not to. Sorry, but that is fact. Sadly, there really is NOT a way to handle firearms "safely", all the time. Sure, there are "more safe" and "less safe" ways, just as there are "safer" and less safe ways to handle snakes. But eventually almost everyone gets bitten. You are exposing yourself, your family and your neighbors to unnecessary risk. Moreover, you are increasing the gun supply and indirectly making it that much easier for those even less responsible than you to own a gun. So... thanks.

                You agree that people who are psychotic, drunk, ill, or high "shouldn't be around firearms". That's nice. How will you stop them? "Safety" training? Dubious at best. With 300 million guns in this country, the chance that someone will be around one when they are so affected rapidly approaches 100%, putting us all at tremendous unnecessary risk. For what gain? So some people can target practice? Not. Worth. It.

                Reducing the chance of accident in bulk? Sure, that would be a nice little thing. Not so helpful compared to the intentional use of firearms, which is far more dangerous and deadly, though. "Safety training" is the tiniest of band-aids on the gaping, sucking chest wound that is gun violence.

                You know what would be more effective than marginal "safety training"? Not giving these unreliable people weapons in the first place. That works even better. 0% chance of accident, 0% chance of intentional killing. Problem solved.

                •  Uh huh (0+ / 0-)

                  You (and your neighbors and family) have been lucky, defying the odds for 20 years.

                  No. I've been taught to handle firearms safely. That substantially reduces the need for any kind of luck to keep myself, my family, and my neighbors safe. A firearm can't hurt anyone if I keep it locked away and unloaded.

                  It's called taking responsibility for oneself. I realize this is a novel concept among the superstitious, ignorant, and frightened, but it's made me happier and more capable.

                  You agree that people who are psychotic, drunk, ill, or high "shouldn't be around firearms". That's nice. How will you stop them? "Safety" training?

                  Why, since you asked, yes. Part of the training is to keep my firearms locked away and unloaded when not in use. If I keep my firearms locked away, in my control and away from the psychotic, drunk, and high, they won't be able to access them. If other people fail to do so, an armed response can stop the psychotic, drunk, and high from doing too much damage. This is what happened at the Clackamas Town Center.

                  I also, by the way, don't drink while armed.

                  Not so helpful compared to the intentional use of firearms, which is far more dangerous and deadly, though

                  Most intentional use of firearms is to commit suicide. Mental health reforms - which, I will note, are on the table right now - will go a long way towards cutting down on death by firearm. Background checks and other measures to clamp down on straw purchases and the black market will go along way on the intentional homicides.

                  You know what would be more effective than marginal "safety training"? Not giving these unreliable people weapons in the first place. That works even better. 0% chance of accident, 0% chance of intentional killing. Problem solved.

                  I'm curious in what world you would find a 0% chance of accident or intentional killing. In a world where gun owners are licensed? In a world where only police and the military have guns? A world where guns simply do not exist?

                  My problem with your worldview is this: when you disarm reasonable, law-abiding people, it becomes all too easy for the unreasonable and the predatory to take advantage of them. The consequences of this are not academic, by the way. People I grew up with in "no-handguns-allowed" Chicago were brutalized by ex-boyfriends who wouldn't obey restraining orders and gangs who wouldn't let them just walk down the street. One guy I only knew peripherally was killed by gangbangers on the Morse Avenue red line station in the late 1990s. You will be glad to know he didn't die from gun violence. He was doused in gasoline and set on fire.

                  I am trying to find a middle ground where reasonable, law abiding people can own and bear firearms for self-defense, and where we are taking measures to keep them out of the hands of those to whom they simply do not belong. Unfortunately, both the gun-grabbers and the NRA are making this middle ground very difficult to find.

                  ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                  My Blog
                  My wife's woodblock prints

                  by maxomai on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 10:49:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What are you so afraid of? (0+ / 0-)
                    No. I've been taught to handle firearms safely. That substantially reduces the need for any kind of luck to keep myself, my family, and my neighbors safe. A firearm can't hurt anyone if I keep it locked away and unloaded.
                    This is, to be kind, ridiculous. I have worked my share of shifts in the emergency room. Pretty much everyone says "Oh, I'm always so careful, it was just this one time... one little mistake". Sure, it's nice that you make the effort. Obviously not everyone does and that's part of the point. Most people ignore "safety training". The people who don't ignore it are incapable of following it perfectly all the time. That includes you, despite your claim of infallibility.

                    I will also point out that if you actually keep your gun "locked away and unloaded" it is completely useless as a tool of self-defense and you've obliterated your own justification for having one in the first place.

                    If I keep my firearms locked away, in my control and away from the psychotic, drunk, and high, they won't be able to access them.
                    Yup. IF you do. Which you (and the millions of other irresponsible gun owners out there have proven they can't possibly do. If your mom had wheels she'd be a wagon....
                    If other people fail to do so, an armed response can stop the psychotic, drunk, and high from doing too much damage.
                    Oh, fantastic! let's all hope to be a victim of "not too much damage"! What a farcical answer. I'm glad we have more guns to help mitigate the damage caused by.... having guns. You know what's better than that: no guns in the hands of the pissed off/drunk/psychotic/ill in the first place.
                    I also, by the way, don't drink while armed.
                    You mean you haven't yet. And we all do appreciate that, but your habits hardly guarantee those of the majority. Or even the one.
                    Most intentional use of firearms is to commit suicide. Mental health reforms - which, I will note, are on the table right now - will go a long way towards cutting down on death by firearm.
                    I wish that were true, but as a physician board certified in Neurology and Psychiatry, I can tell you it's not. How could it? Do these laws somehow involve precognition? Suicide is frequently an impulsive act, unpredictable, and often more a gesture-- but a gun turns a gesture into a tombstone.
                    Background checks and other measures to clamp down on straw purchases and the black market will go along way on the intentional homicides
                    Well, one would like to think so but prohibition would work much better.
                    I'm curious in what world you would find a 0% chance of accident or intentional killing. In a world where gun owners are licensed? In a world where only police and the military have guns? A world where guns simply do not exist?
                    Only police and military on duty should have guns.
                    My problem with your worldview is this: when you disarm reasonable, law-abiding people, it becomes all too easy for the unreasonable and the predatory to take advantage of them.
                    Not so, at all. First of all, it is not possible to distinguish the "reasonable" from the "unreasonable" before it is too late-- keep in mind the perfect legality of the way the weapons in the most recent mass killings were obtained.

                    Secondly, disarming people means drying up the weapon supply for the unreasonable and predatory as well and especially. The biggest reason we have to worry about gangs, robbers, and so on is because they may be armed. Making guns less available to them protects us all.

                    Third, it is virtually impossible for a "reasonable, law abiding person" to adequately defend himself with a gun in most situations, as the predator always has the advantage of the first move. The introduction of the weapon escalates the situation and results in killings. The Navy's best sniper was shot to death the other day. Do you really think some random cowboy is going to "defend" himself so much more effectively? Do you think you can retrieve, unlock, and load your weapon faster than an intruder can point his gun at you? That's delusional.

                    People I grew up with in "no-handguns-allowed" Chicago were brutalized by ex-boyfriends who wouldn't obey restraining orders and gangs who wouldn't let them just walk down the street.

                    So you think that introducing more weapons into that situation would be beneficial? All data indicates that the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation vastly increases the probability of the woman being murdered.

                    The problem with your worldview is you seem to think all problems can be solved with more violence/threats of violence and upping of the the body count. They can't.

                    I am trying to find a middle ground where reasonable, law abiding people can own and bear firearms for self-defense
                    And the question I will ask you is: WHY? What is so wonderful about guns that they are worth the 300,000 people shot and 30,000 dead per year? What makes you think you can actually reliably identify "reasonable, law abiding people" who are guaranteed to remain that way for all time and never make a mistake (hint: you can't)? Are guns that much better than other types of self-defense (hint: the answer is no)? Do you just like them? Do you live in abject fear, cowering in a corner with your weapon drawn? What exactly is it that makes guns so worthwhile to you? Where is the benefit in the risk/benefit analysis of personal gun ownership? I simply do not see it, and yet I see plenty of carnage and fear caused by you and people like you. I think we need to change that.
      •  Seriously, maxomai? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo, rbird, reflectionsv37, Shotput8

        You believe this?:

        In a week, we've had fifty-one incidents.
        I mean, I'm not very bright but even I am smart enough to figure out that whatever David publishes is only a small part of the total.

        Why, just last week I suggested to David that he include in this week's list the Awesome Beyond Words, Bonnie-and-Clyde-style shootup of the two ladies' LA Times delivery truck by trigger-happy LAPD idiots looking to execute Christopher Dorner on the dark streets of Torrance at 5:30 in the morning.

        But he didn't include that.

        So - fifty-TWO incidents.

        Or maybe more.

        Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. - Paul Wellstone

        by occams hatchet on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:54:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  First time I've read these (14+ / 0-)

    Sounds like a heavy competition for this year's Darwin Awards.

    Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

    by Dallasdoc on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:39:42 AM PST

  •  Thanks for doing this (17+ / 0-)

    I can't even make it halfway thru before getting angry; even reading a couple of them makes me clench my teeth.

    Don't know how you manage it, but thanks for continuing to prove the irresponsibility of 'responsible gun owners."

    •  It's astonishing how many of the reports state (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hamjudo, Helena Handbag, rbird, Shotput8

      that there were no charges.

      Shouldn't there at least be a charge of negligent xyz?  Or the one they use for fender bender car accidents?

      "Inattentive driving"

      If there was a minimum fine AND RESTITUTION for ANY "accidental" discharge, it might have have some educational / deterrent value.

    •  I know what you mean. (0+ / 0-)

      I keep wondering how high the body-count has to go for these people--before they see their way clear to sensible gun regulations?

      Wht do they want more guns but fewer laws?

      Why do they protest responsible gun-legislation in a country awash with guns and so many gun-related deaths?

      How can they be that irresponsible?

      It's just incredible.

      Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

      by lyvwyr101 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 03:23:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Glad you are strudying this (8+ / 0-)

    Seems no one else is or is allowed to.

    Have you been able to group all these stories into categories?  I think it would help a lot if we knew relative frequencies.  I've read that most gun deaths are as a result of suicide.  Have you found that to be true?

    The pro gun group claim these victims would just find another way, except that 85% of attempts by gun are fatal and attempts by pills are fatal only 2% of the time.  Handguns especially, make suicide too easy.  We'll probably never know the portion that were carried out on a whim, for lack of a better word.

    Also, how frequently shooters have been on prescription medication for depression.  I've heard terrible stories about SSRIs.

    Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

    by Helpless on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:44:25 AM PST

    •  Perhaps a table at the beginning or end (0+ / 0-)

      of each diary with numbers for this diary and since you started.

      Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

      by Helpless on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:47:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some facts (21+ / 0-)

      According to the CDC, over 100,000 Americans suffer a gunshot injury every year.  over 30,000 Americans suffer a fatal gunshot injury every year.  Over half (about 55%) of fatal gunshot injuries are categorized as suicide.

      While suicide makes up the majority of fatal gunshot injuries, intentional self-inflicted NON-fatal gunshot injuries are vanishingly rare.

      Gun enthusiasts sometimes tell us that people who commit suicide will find another way to kill themselves if their efforts are impeded or interrupted.  Empiric studies of people who have tried to kill themselves show us this is entirely wrong and a gross misunderstanding of the nature of suicide.  We put high fences on tall bridges for good reason: those fences save lives.  a similar effort should be made where guns are concerned.

      Gun enthusiasts sometimes tell us that people who want to kill themsleves should be allowed to do so.  My suspicion is this is said more over concern for the free availability of guns rather than out of concern for the well-being of others.  That kind of statement sounds to me like yelling "jump!" to the guy standing on the ledge.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:22:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, confiscate every gun in the nation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishbone

        to save these people from themselves?

        Just the thought that there is a benevolent bureaucracy out there protecting them will likely cheer them up enough to not even think about committing suicide in the first place. Huh?

        Will you confiscate autos next?  They are responsible for much higher death rates.

        •  Saving 100,000+ gun injuries (12+ / 0-)

          In a study of the costs of gunshot injuries, the estimated average direct hospital cost of a single gunshot wound was between $20,000 - 30,000, and the total yearly direct hospital costs of all gunshot injuries for the country as a whole was over $2 bil. (in 1990 dollars).  Around 50% of those costs were covered by tax-payers.  This does not include indirect or ancillary costs such as EMTs, police investigations, rehabiliation, lost wages, etc.

          Were we able to confiscate all guns, we would not only be spared a hundred thousand injuries, but also realize a tremendous savings of public money.    

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:58:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And auto acidents? You seemed to ignore (0+ / 0-)

            that one.  How much does it cost us?  What are all the ancillary costs?

            You don't really need a car, do you?  Walk for all I care and you won't be a danger to me.

            And don't forget swimming pools.  Accidental drownings..

            and home cleaning products that kill toddlers each year.

            Bust even worse.  We should ban stairs.  Thousands of people die each year from falls.. over 1300 alone on stairs.  And that is just deaths!  Think of all the medical costs for the tens of thousands that survive!

            •  Do the math. (8+ / 0-)

              Calculate the impact on our economy if we removed all cars and trucks from the US. Think that comes out with a positive number instead of a really, freaking huge negative economic impact?

            •  Distraction Alert: topic is guns (11+ / 0-)

              I thought I would offer a distraction alert: you seem to be in danger of going off-topic to talk about cars, swimming pools, and cleaning products.

              The subject here is guns.

              If you want to talk about cars, or swimming pools, I suggest you write an article on one of those topics and have a discussion therein.

              In this thread we are talking about guns.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:36:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Right. (7+ / 0-)

              Because cars, stairs, and swimming pools are all just like guns in their utility.

              Everything in life is a balance between risk and reward. The immense benefits of being able to transport our selves and goods across large distances IS worth some risk-- and active steps have been taken on many levels (including legislative) to mitigate that risk on an ongoing basis.

              Apparently, to you, these hundreds of thousands of  maimings and deaths are worth the rewards of gun ownership. I would like to see you or anyone defend that position. Please: enumerate the rewards of gun ownership that compete with car ownership. Maybe if you're convincing I'll buy one each for the whole family.

              •  I do not need to defend it. (0+ / 0-)

                It is an inalienable right.  Whether you think there is some utility to having guns owned by citizens doesn't matter a whit.   If people think the value of having a gun equals the risks to themselves and their families, then it is none of my business or yours.

                Carrying guns in public, however, is indeed our business.  All of us.  And, who in society should be barred from having guns is also our business - which is what the current debate on gun legislation should be about.

                •  Nonanswer (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rbird

                  Of course it needs to be defended. Either it is a good idea, or it is not. Risk/reward. It is only a "right" because it is currently so interpreted (incorrectly) by the SCOTUS, but of course that could be changed.

                  So, I say again: lay out the case in favor of gun ownership that makes it worth 300,000 shootings a year, 30,000 deaths a year, and a nation that feels like it's constantly under siege or admit that owning guns is not such a great idea and we should change the law.

                •  "It is an inalienable right." (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  awsdirector, JVolvo, rbird, mudfud27, Shotput8

                  Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and guns!

                  That's a new one. (Even if there were actually such a thing as an inalienable right, which I think is silly philosophical twaddle, I'm pretty sure that 'owning a handgun' wouldn't be high on the list of candidates.)

                  Do you mean by 'inalienable', in this case, 'a right that you have even if you are currently and will always in the future be prevented from exercising that right'? As in, 'even in the United Kingdom people have the inalienable right to carry guns, they are just prevented from ever exercising that right from birth to death'. That's very zen, but not, ultimately, persuasive in the actual world.

                  Or perhaps you mean that handguns are an inalienable right of American citizens unless they decide to live in some other country that doesn't allow them to take handguns there or unless they are arrested or unless they are too poor to be able to afford a gun or unless they are judged mentally incompetent or unless they accidentally shoot themselves in the head, thus depriving themselves of three inalienable rights in one blow (although arguably they do still have 'liberty' so that's good, right?)

                  Or perhaps you just heard the phrase 'inalienable rights' and liked the sound of it, without knowing anything about its philosophical underpinnings?

                •  Where does it say (6+ / 0-)

                  that owning guns is an unalienable right?  I thought that "all men are created equal", that we are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".  Do we really hold the right to carry any weaponry we want is "holding these truths to be self evident"?

                  I really get tired of gun nuts crapping on the conversation by bringing up automobiles.  Sure, there are 30,000 deaths a year in cars, but they were not intended to kill people.  People in this country drive 300,000,000 times a day, billions of miles daily.  Many accidents are caused by faulty equipment, road conditions, other drivers, as well as drunks.  And yet we have far more stringent requirements to drive a car than we do to own a gun.  Relatively speaking, a gun is incredibly more dangerous than any car.

                  "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

                  by rwgate on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 10:36:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Bullshit. Just--plain---bullshit. (0+ / 0-)
                  It is an inalienable right.

                  Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

                  by lyvwyr101 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 03:31:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Honestly what does it take to teach someone (6+ / 0-)

              who can't tell the difference between a car and a gun or stairs and a gun?

              If you can't tell the difference. Please stay away from guns.

            •  Pathetic, absurdist gun "logic" FAIL. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shotput8

              The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

              by JVolvo on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:38:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  From your post to God's ear! (0+ / 0-)
            Were we able to confiscate all guns, we would not only be spared a hundred thousand injuries, but also realize a tremendous savings of public money.

            Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

            by lyvwyr101 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 03:27:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Confiscate guns you say? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, Skookum, JVolvo, rbird, Shotput8

          Excellent idea. Thanks!

          •  Or at least add to the list of those who can not (5+ / 0-)

            keep and bear arms, anyone with a PROVEN history of an inability to safely keep and bear arms.

            Anyone accidentally discharging a gun...

            when cleaning with a round in the chamber

            when "showing" with a round in the chamber

            when "target shooting" and hitting anyone (including self) or damaging anyone else's property

            anyone whose firearm is discharged accidentally or intentionally by a child (except for safe supervised firearm use at an approved facility or hunting range)

            anyone whose gun is discharged while it is pointed at another person

            NO MORE RIGHT TO KEEP OR BEAR ARMS for those with a PROVEN capacity to pass around a loaded gun, not notice that the open end of the barrel is pointed at themselves or someone else, not notice that their fire arm is unsecured

            All of these people are a menace to those around them and after proving they LACK the capacity or judgment to BE responsible gun owners, should lose their right to keep and bear arms.

            •  I'll take that. (0+ / 0-)

              But I would add to it:

              Anyone who can get high
              Anyone who can get drunk
              Anyone who may someday have a psychotic break
              Anyone who could have a stroke, encephalopathy, frontal lobe epilepsy, and so on
              Anyone who has ever put his keys down and forgotten where

              I think you see where I am going with this....

              •  Lot's of people can drink, get high, (0+ / 0-)

                have a psychotic break, suffer a brain damage, and experience moments of brain freeze, poor memory, extreme stress.

                None of those are PROVEN incapacity to handle/store/use a gun safely.

                What I'd like to see is sanctions, with increasing severity.

                No need to kitchen sink all the activities that may compromise judgement.

                Add to your list extreme fatigue. Drowsy driving is a bad as driving drunk.

              •  Left off one part of the point. (0+ / 0-)
                None of those are PROVEN incapacity to handle/store/use a gun safely.
                when a gun is not present.

                It's the presence of the gun, or easy access to a gun, not the other factors.

                Many people drink, but most people do not drive drunk.

                •  Right. (0+ / 0-)

                  So clearly the answer is to prevent access to the guns. Problem solved.

                  •  No, it's the mixing of the gun with (0+ / 0-)

                    a moment of poor judgment or poor impulse control that makes it a menace.

                    I'm fine with background checks and training and licensing. A large number of gun owners have no risk of having their hobby, their ability to hunt, or their ability to defend their property hindered in any way.

                    Then stiff restriction or loss of easy access to firearms for a proven FAILURE to be responsible.

                    •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                      I mean, sure, I agree that "mixing a moment of poor judgement or impulse control" with easy access to a gun produces a menace. But, seriously, what are you going to do about that? ALL humans exercise moments of poor judgement or impulse control or they become ill or otherwise impaired. It is literally impossible to predict these events.

                      So what is more (OK, even remotely) practical: monitoring all people at all times for poor judgement and moments of impairment or impulse control, and somehow limiting their gun access at just those moments, or strictly limiting the access to guns at all times except when expressly needed for some legitimate purpose (like police or military action)?

                      •  Wow - it's not that hard to see that (0+ / 0-)

                        anyone whose firearm results in someone going to the hospital should face fines, restitution and should have their RKBA restricted or eliminated.

                        That means that anyone who DOES keep their firearm secure, uses it in an safe manner, and doesn't create a hazard for themselves has no risk of losing their RKBA.

                        We have charges such as inattentive driving for a fender bender where no one goes to the hospital. People pay a penalty for inattentive driving.

                        Don't you think similar charges could/should be filed when someone has an "accident" with a gun.

                        Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face. No charges, no fine, no restriction of RKBA from someone who has PROVEN their inability to handle a firearm safely.

                        •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

                          Of course what you propose should happen, too (not that it will).

                          The question is: given the lethality of modern weapons, how do you prevent these events from happening in the first place?

                          •  You start by enacting policies that will (0+ / 0-)

                            reduce the number of unsecured guns in homes where children live.

                            I'm more optimistic than you are. There are plenty of people experienced with fire arms that have, for one reason or another, decided to no longer own any firearms. That trend is getting a big boost right now by the NRA spokesmodel, Mr. LaPierre. Let's not get in his way.

                            Fewer and fewer people are owning any gun, but a few people are buying more guns. This, in my view, is evidence of gun trafficking. It's not all gun collecting or hoarding.

                            I'm optimistic - and I hope you'll agree that a scenario such as this would be realistic. If a responsible member of an extended family visits a home of a relative or friend where weapons are not secured, and tells them, "Hey, look man, keep that thing locked up or you could lose your RKBA." Or liberal gun hating sister-in-law says "I'd love our kids to play with your nieces and nephews but not in their home, because there are guns there, and I'm not willing to take that risk." Peer-to-peer pressure will change behavior. It's the biggest factor that influences someone to vote, to go to church, to do their best on an exam. Peer influence works.

                            But currently there are few/no policies to support responsible people who can/will influence people in their circle if there were barriers to entry AND significant sanctions for careless / illegal possession / discharge.

                            We hear the most about the most stupid/careless people because that's what makes good copy.

                    •  Put another way (0+ / 0-)

                      Let me ask the question this way. You contend that "a large number of gun owners have no risk of having their hobby, ability to hunt, or defend their property hindered in any way." I actually disagree with this, but I'll stipulate it. Now, here's the hard part for your position:

                      Provide the way to predict precisely which of those nice hunters/hobbyists/property defenders will, one day, suddenly snap and go off on a shooting rampage, and which ones won't (before it happens). Provide the way to know in advance which of these nice "responsible" people will receive a distracting phone call when they're supposed to be locking up their weapon, forget to set the lock, and have their grandchild find the unlocked weapon one day. Tell me which one of those nice hobbyists will develop a meth problem in a year and sell off 4 or 5 guns to a gang.

                      As the American experience (as well as common sense) proves, the vast, vast majority of people cannot be trusted with modern guns. Closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, like you propose by taking away gun rights only AFTER a tragedy occurs, only leads to more tragedies. The default position needs to be that individuals are not allowed personal firearms.

                      •  Simple barriers and enforcement (0+ / 0-)

                        on the front end, imposed on anyone who wants to possess a firearm would reduce the incidence of accidental shootings.

                        In practical terms, I think of it the way New York city made a big impact on crime, but focusing on reducing small crimes. Arrest the turnstile jumper, and the number of muggings and assaults in the subway goes down. Arrest and fine the jay walker and the number of pedestrian/vehicle collisions goes down.

                        You don't have to predict who is a mugger or who is going to walk in front of a car to reduce the risk. On the front end I'm in favor of required licensing and training and regulations that make tracing a bullet to the gun, and the gun to the last legal owner.

                      •  Your lack of history (0+ / 0-)

                        Prohibition didn't work. It's not alcohol consumption that's the problem, it is certain patterns of use that create the hazards. So regulations that limit where people can drink and with whom do reduce the hazard, even if it doesn't eliminate it entirely. E.g. not allowing open containers on the street does reduce the menace of public drunkenness. It's not necessary to predict in advance who will become an alcoholic.

                        You can claim that the horses have already left the barn, as justification that the only thing to do is to disallow private horses. That is an untenable proposal that you know inflames the other side, so it's a posture from which you know nothing will get passed. When one side advocates a ban on all guns for personal use it's so out of touch with a couple hundred years of American history, that it amounts to abandoning the middle.

                        I see the problem in more practical terms.

                        Suppose gun ownership included a title, and background checks for both the buyer and the seller. Licensing for a particular weapon involved passing a safety & proficiency course, and periodic retesting, say every 5 years.

                        Periodic inspections, say every 2 years, could require a gun owner to present their weapons for inspection, the same way a car gets inspected periodically.  The owner of the firearms must prove they still have that weapon in their possession. If the gun owner lost the weapon, or it was stolen and not reported, that person would face a significant fine, and would not be allowed to simply go buy another firearm. Can't tell who they sold their fire arm to, no more RKBA. If a firearm was stolen, the owner must file a police report within 48 hours, to retain their right to purchase another firearm, and must undergo training about firearm security and re-certification.

                        A gun turns up in a crime that was never reported lost or stolen, prior legal owner faces a stiff fine and loss of RKBA for say X years, (say 10-15).

                        There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed to reduce the casual transfer and easy access to guns for people who can't follow simple rules, or are making some cash under the table buying and selling guns.

                        And these restrictions would result in a significant number of people losing their right to buy/sell/have a weapon for any reason. Should they still be allowed to go to a range and shoot at targets? Sure. But no guns at home, in their vehicle, or on their person.

                        •  Prohibition of Alcohol (0+ / 0-)

                          and guns are not analogous. There are places in the world where gun prohibitions work extremely well. And as you well know, the effects of a misused gun and misused alcohol are extremely different from a public safety standpoint, justifying very different approaches.

                          Your proposals about registration and inspection are a great start and I would support all of them. Unfortunately they have as much chance of enraging the "other side" and actually passing as an outright ban.

                          •  I agree that the analogy of (0+ / 0-)

                            prohibition of alcohol and prohibition of guns are limited. And that prohibition of guns has had huge benefits elsewhere.

                            But here in the US - prohibition of drugs hasn't worked any better than prohibition of alcohol did a century ago.

                            Licensing and registration may provoke a lot of push back, but there are plenty of truly responsible gun owners who will support such regulations, but would vote against any congressperson who supports an outright ban.

                            How we disarm our society matters. Gun buy backs do help. Any restrictions that reduce gun trafficking will have a benefit.

                            It's my opinion that we have a large underground economy dependent on legal guns and ammunition. A significant number who are making some cash that way will no longer bother if there are only a few barriers in their way. Even if it's a baby step.

                          •  Good plan (0+ / 0-)

                            Legalize drugs. Criminalize weapons. Make it so.

                      •  An analogy (0+ / 0-)

                        So your default position on prescription drugs is that no doctor should be allowed to prescribe painkillers or anxiolytics because a few doctors enable addicts relatively easy access to addictive drugs.

                        By your logic, because "the horses have already left the barn," and it's not possible to predict in advance which doctors will become legal junkies, either intentionally or unintentionally, and it's not possible to know in advance which patients will become small time drug dealers of prescription drugs, no doctors should be able to prescribe potentially addictive drugs to any patient.

                        What would happen?

                        The black market for those drugs would import those drugs from around the world, and impose a huge mark up.

                        I would expect that there would be more demand for illicit painkillers and anxiolytics, more alcoholism, more lost productivity, more domestic violence, etc.

                        Instead, as a society we accept that there are risks of misuse and abuse by some, but legal access by almost all to reduce or manage their pain/anxiety/some other problem results in more people remaining functional members of their families and productive members of society.

                        •  No. Totally not. (0+ / 0-)

                          Not at all.

                          In order to be allowed to Rx potentially dangerous drugs, I went to school for 4 years of specialized training and had a 4 year apprenticeship. I renew various certifications at various intervals, and every Rx I make is tracked on an ongoing basis. If/when doctors eventually do something wrong, it is a) very, very rare due to the arduous licensing process;  b) easily identified and prosecuted; and c) almost never as deadly as gun trafficking or use (not that drugs cannot be dangerous, of course, but taking a few benzos hardly compares to shooting up the local mall).

                          Gun owners go through exactly zero training, have no licensing, have no responsibility to maintain any skills and if they ever "misbehave" someone or many someones is often dead instantly, before any intervention can happen.

                          As you correctly point out, medications have many positive uses, which is why we (in a controlled way) allow their use. You write "as a society we accept that there are risks of misuse and abuse by some, but legal access by almost all to reduce or manage their pain/anxiety/some other problem results in more people remaining functional members of their families and productive members of society." And you are 100% right.

                          Guns, however, have exceedingly dubious benefits in this way. Can you point to any such benefit? In what way do deadly weapons allow people to be productive and functional members of society in the way that medications do? Where is the benefit on the risk/benefit analysis? Target practice? Hunting? Get a bow and arrow. Self defense? Rarely effective, use pepper spray.

                          So... you've made about the worst analogy imaginable.  

                          •  Here's the facts on prescription drug overdose (0+ / 0-)

                            from the CDC:
                            http://www.cdc.gov/...

                            You are simply wrong about the scale of the problem with diversion of prescription drugs, and willfully ignorant about how much of the country uses fire arms, (on a ranch, to put meat away for the whole year, etc.).

                            We agree about the need for training / proficiency testing / renewals (some kind of continuing ed) / sanctions for failure.

                            Currently, accidental shootings that don't result in death carry very few penalties, and often no charges at all even when there are injuries. Some restrictions can be passed that will require reckless people to surrender their firearms. And since they are reckless with guns they are likely to be reckless elsewhere in their lives, but at least they won't have a gun when they are.

                          •  Red herring (0+ / 0-)

                            Particularly since I didn't comment in any way about the magnitude of the problem with prescription drugs, I'm not sure how I can be "wrong" about it. That said, I am a physician and am perfectly aware of it. I am also well aware that it is nothing at all like the weapon problem, and is a useless analogy.

                            I could really care less about how much of the country "uses" firearms and for what. They have proven that they cannot do so without endangering us, their families, and themselves. Change happens. The people who "use" firearms can change what they do, or they can go to jail as far as I am concerned.

                            Not that I would not support things you describe (licensing and penalties for careless gun use)-- they're nice incremental steps. But you know they will not solve the problem like prohibition would and does elsewhere in the world. Unfortunately the steps you propose (while certainly sensible as far as they go) have approximately as much chance of being implemented as a total gun ban.

                          •  This is just false (0+ / 0-)
                            Gun owners go through exactly zero training, have no licensing, have no responsibility to maintain any skills and if they ever "misbehave" someone or many someones is often dead instantly, before any intervention can happen.
                            Disparaging ALL gun owners as having no training or expertise is silly. Many gun owners have had extensive training and proficiency testing. Some by their parents, some through a school or community club, some in the military or police academy, and some from their own desire.

                            What is correct is that to buy or possess a gun - people are not required to show proof of any kind of training or proficiency. That's what needs to change.

                            Licensing will go a long way to get guns out of the hands of the most jackass people. Severe penalties for injuries to children or injuries that occurred with children present will go a long way to get guns out of the homes of those who commit more than half of the accidental shootings.

                            Most of the accidental shootings by children and teens probably occur with a gun that someone else bought. Severe penalties will reduce those accidental shootings by a lot if they get guns out of those homes.

                            You can't say they would have no impact.

                            Consider: An accidental discharge while cleaning a weapon, injury to self.
                            Penalty: Fine, Surrender of all weapons in the home (even those owned by others) and 5 year suspension of RKBA for all members of the household. That's how you clean out.

                            Unlawful possession after that involves a significant fine and overnight in jail. By the time five years pass it's possible that others in the house will have sold their fire arms or no one in that house will bother buying another gun.

                            In the mean time, other members of the household who ARE responsible with fire arms, can still go hunting with a member of the family or friend willing who is willing to put their own license on the line to vouch for them. There is enormous deterrent potential in such a regulatory framework, when truly responsible gun owners start to intervene in the sloppy behavior the observe by those around them.

                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                            You are right. I should have said that there is no requirement for gun owners to have any proficiency or training. And that the vast, vast majority of them do not. Better?

                            The measures you propose, while sensible as far as they go are unfortunately woefully insufficient for weapons. They are so deadly and so dangerous that, all to often, the first "mistake" is deadly. "Severe penalties" are nice but they don't bring people back from the dead, or get them up out of wheelchairs.

                            What needs to change is the presence of guns in the hands of private people, period. Training cannot prevent accidents even if it might reduce them. It cannot prevent the mixture of mind-altering substances and firearms. It cannot prevent the onset of mental illness. It cannot prevent someone from simply losing his temper, or a case of mistaken identity. And on and on and on and on.

  •  Can I offer constructive criticism? (8+ / 0-)

    I think this would be more effective if your one sentence on each case was more factual and less comical.  Clicking on all the links and then coming back to your diary takes too much time.

    Just a suggestion.

    "Don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

    by tc59 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:45:22 AM PST

    •  I would go further. (4+ / 0-)

      Some Kossacks can favor gun control while still being respectful of the other side.  I think voices like that are much more likely to make a difference.

      Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

      by Boundegar on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:50:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And kossacks in the middle of the debate (14+ / 0-)

        can be extended additional courtesies by those on either extreme end.

        While the extremities want to fill the debate with bullshit memes and hot air, those of us in the middle, awaiting the more-reasoned debate, are slathered with the nonsense that passes for 'reasoning' on either extreme end.

        Because I don't want to push all gun owners off a cliff into a fire, banners call me an NRA card holder.

        Because I don't want to arm every last ameoba, doesn't mean I want to ban guns. And just because I think many people take their gun love too far, I don't believe in banning them.

        I DO believe in real training courses. There's my contribution for the day. Lets make people who want guns take real training courses. I have a degree in education so I could be biased.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:02:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  NO (4+ / 0-)

          Thinking for yourself is NOT ALLOWED.

          Toe the line, Progressive, or complete your treason to the cause and join the Tea Party. There is no middle ground.

          ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
          My Blog
          My wife's woodblock prints

          by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:27:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, this is a behavioral/training issue. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xxdr zombiexx, Calamity Jean

          Gun accidental deaths are a distraction from the real issues regarding legislation- i.e. keeping guns out of the hands of those with mental problems, and having universal registration for all gun sales.

          This should be simple legislation that could be passed immediately if it were not for extremists on both sides.

          •  I can;t think of a better way to weed out (0+ / 0-)

            the less competent....

            Though, driving in Atlanta tells me training only does so much good...... stupid is everywhere.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:57:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You should come to Chicago! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean

              These guys need target practice.  

              But, seriously, more often than not, an innocent kid is hit by these idiots, as in the case of Hadiya Pendleton recently.  These bangers have a beef with someone and they simply spray a whole magazine in the general direction of the person they want to hit.

              If we want to stop gun violence, we need cops and, most especially, prosecutors to do their friggin' jobs  (and in Chicago they are hampered by Rahm Emmanuel who won't let them).  The guy who shot her was on probation(!) for unlawful use of a firearms just 2 years ago.  Instead of confiscating guns, let's have mandatory jail time for firearm crimes.  

          •  No, it's the pro gun extremists who are blocking (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mudfud27, ratcityreprobate, Skookum

            those of us who want to go further in restricting guns are willing to start with those 2 issues.  

            But rest assured we will keep working to go further - we will keep working to make owning military style weapons and both open and concealed carry laws as unacceptable as smoking and drunk driving.  

            •  No.. it's both of you! (0+ / 0-)

              Stop the talk of more restrictions!  The best you are going to get is those two issues.  But we will not get them if people continually try to push for more and more.

              •  "STOP ADVOCATING FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN!" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                koNko

                "OR ELSE I WON'T BE ABLE TO GET THE TINY THING THAT I BELIEVE IN!"

                You know, even leaving aside how patently offensive and obnoxious that is, it also echoes Obama's best negotiation style: always go in asking for less than you actually want, so as not to scare your negotiating partner away. And then, when you end up getting nothing, you can spin it as a compromise.

                That is exactly the tactic you are advocating here. I don't know, maybe it's because you really do think that this time it will work. Or maybe you just think that you really really really want to keep all your guns and you're terrified that if we demand actual, real change, that we might actually get some, and then where would you be.

                I don't know. I don't care. Either way, your approach has proven over and over again to be ineffective, broken, and ultimately counterproductive.

          •  Please enlighten us (8+ / 0-)

            I am a physician, board certified in Neurology and Psychiatry.

            I would LOVE to know how you determine who has a "mental problem" when they buy a gun. Does the gun have a magical "crazy detector" in the handle? Can I get some of this technology for my clinic?

            Do you really want a federal database of every person who has ever taken Prozac? How's that for "keeping the government out of our business"?

            The REAL issue is that NO ONE KNOWS who has "mental problems" often until well after some horrible event has occurred, but the gun nuts throw up their hands and say "what can you do?" I'll tell you what you do: you keep guns out of the hands of people who might develop a mental problem. Guess who that is? Yeah, it's pretty much EVERYBODY.

            All this blather from the NRA side about "keeping the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" is nothing but a distraction. They know that the actual number of people who carry a Dx AT THE TIME OF A SHOOTING is vanishingly small.

            •  Absolutely (0+ / 0-)

              Sorry I didn't read your post before I did mine, because I said pretty much exactly the same thing.  

              "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

              by rwgate on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 10:57:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's easy... (0+ / 0-)

              ...anyone who is currently advocating that we not change our gun laws in the slightest is pretty clearly suffering from a moral illness, hoplophilia. They are the people who shouldn't have weapons.

            •  You betcha. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mudfud27

              I've often thought---the NRA mantra to keep guns away from anyone who has---or may have--- a psychological problem---is the most ludicrous statement I have ever listened to.

              It is just about everybody.

              How will we ever know who has or may have a psychological issue?

              That DOES apply to almost everybody.

              Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

              by lyvwyr101 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:44:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  What other rights will we deny people with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Skookum

            "mental problems"?

            And who get's to make that determination?

            Ever taken an anti depressant? Prozac Zoloft and Celexa alone are prescribed 80 million times a year in the U.S.

          •  Oh you *MUST* be kidding (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Skookum
            This should be simple legislation that could be passed immediately if it were not for extremists on both sides.
            I see, I see. So you're saying that universal registration for all gun sales would be passed immediately if there weren't all those extremists on the left who would immediately oppose it. (Because without them there would be extremists on only one side. Not both sides. See?)

            I guess it's also the extremists on both sides that are responsible for our current deadlock in the Senate, too, huh?

            Face the fucking truth: gun control advocates would be delighted with some tiny crumbs, even right now when the public is overwhelmingly in favor of said crumbs. And we won't get it. And it's not, repeat fucking not because there are 'extremists' on the left (what, three of them left in the US, and there'll be two when Chomsky dies?) who are sabotaging the 'reasonable people' like you.

            It's because one side is sane, and one side is not, and the one that is not has all the guns and most of the legislators.

          •  And, pray tell, how (0+ / 0-)

            do you tell who has mental problems and who doesn't?  Will it now be required that everybody in the US see a mental health specialist (psychologist or psychiatrist) each year to prove that they are mentally competent?  Since doctor's are prohibited by lawfrom discussing patient diagnoses, would they break that law to inform on a client?  Who would they tell?

            This whole fixation on preventing people with mental problems from owning guns is a red herring.  You couldn't pick a person with mental problems out of a crowd if your life depended on it (and it might).  Psychiatrists estimate that 1 out of every 50 people in this country are sociopaths, lacking feeling and empathy, with no regard for the consequences of their actions.  There is a thin line between the sociopathic and psychopathic personalities.

            Besides, what is the definition of "mental problem"?  Antisocial?  Too quiet?  Doesn't get along well with others?  A little withdrawn?  Fixated on video games?  A loner?  Half the population of the US could qualify on one or more of these definitions, as well as the shooter's in Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, Tucson, Virginia (the list goes on).  Only hindsight is perfect in finding these people, and by then, it's too late.

            "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

            by rwgate on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 10:55:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Tone arguments are *always* well received (0+ / 0-)

        Y'know what? I used to say things like that. And then I heard some stuff about tone arguments, and about how they're used, and I realized something. I understand that this is a big revelation (it certainly was for me, and I am not being facetious here either) so I will try to put it simply:

        Not everybody has to argue the same. And it is more effective if we all argue differently.

        If you want to be reasonable and reach out a hand of peace across the aisle, you can do that. There are a lot of people like you, and in some places they are the most effective standard-bearers for an argument. But not every case. Sometimes yelling at people over and over again really does end with them actually hearing what you're yelling, when no other method does. Sometimes telling people that their deeply cherished opinion will result in a lot more kiddies getting murdered and that they are an objectively bad person if they think that's fine does actually shock someone into spending the requisite minute or two actually examining their own assumptions.

        And, let's be honest, the people we're arguing with are the ones for whom the mass killing of a bunch of little kids made no dent in their own certainty of their own correctness. In many cases, it just cemented it: if you want the omelette of a perfect country, you have to expect a few broken eggs, blah blah. If you think gentle argument is going to convince them, then you have not dealt with very many extremists.

        I wish you the best of luck with your quest to convince people by pure reason, but y'know what? Telling other people that they should argue like you, because otherwise someone on the other side might get offended? Not actually helpful.

        •  But you missed my point. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not worried that flippant sarcasm will anger the NRA; I'm worried that it will chase away the fence-sitters, and make LaPierre look reasonable, and justify the idea that "both sides do it."

          Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

          by Boundegar on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 06:26:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Also I neglected to mention (0+ / 0-)

          you make some very good points, too.

          Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

          by Boundegar on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 06:27:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Frankly, I like the humor, dark as it is. (6+ / 0-)

      In my view, these folks deserve to be laughed at.

      "...somewhere to the left of 'Whoopee!'..."

      by Chantez les Bas on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:32:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've been looking for a term (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kareylou, Skookum

        I've been trying to figure out a term that is the opposite of "fool proof" to describe guns. Fool Enhanced? Fool bait? I notice that a synonym for fool proof is "sure fire". Interesting but ironic.

        Guns are inherently dangerous. That's not a design flaw, that's the point. And while even minor misuse often leads to catastrophic results, there is no real effort in this country to restrict access (just the opposite) or enforce proper use.

        A couple of suggestions:

        1. Restrict access to ammunition by anyone who has ever uttered the phrase "Hey, y'all, watch this..."

        2. If anyone with a gun says "Hey, hold my beer", don't.

        3. Any gun that is involved in any accidental shooting should be confiscated and destroyed.

    •  No. Irresponsible gun ownership needs to be (6+ / 0-)

      criticized, emphasized, and even ridiculed.  Why hold the irresponsibility in the same light and respect that should be given to responsible examples of bearing arms?  Anyways, as mentioned in the preamble (sheesh, am I the only one who reads the whole thing?), each one-liner description includes a link to the dry facts regarding the incident.

      •  It also needs to be prosecuted. (7+ / 0-)

        Maybe if there were some actual, you know, consequences to irresponsible gun behavior, it would begin to help.

        I'm amazed at the number of incidents that are reported with something like "The shooting was determined to be accidental and no charges were filed."

        If someone fucks up with a gun, take the gun away and charge them with a crime.

        •  This^^^ (5+ / 0-)

          And also charge their asses for every second our employees spent dealing with this nonsense.  RKBA folks are always saying that they need their weapons because LE won't be around when they are needed.  It may be that LE can't respond in a timely fashion because Bubba accidentally shot himself in the ankle and the town's resources had to respond to the scene.

          But there truly should never be a situation where "no charges were filed".  And the charge should be some kind of felony to prevent idiots like this from legally owning a firearm in the future.  One strike and you're out.

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:15:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Responsible examples of bearing arms" (0+ / 0-)

        You mean by police and soldiers? We hear about that all the time.

        Otherwise the phrase is an oxymoron.

    •  I've done it both ways. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo

      Look at some of the earlier entries in the GunFAIL series.

  •  I'm starting to wonder (10+ / 0-)

    If the impairment in mental cognition to which lead is linked and the demonstrated prevalence of lead dust and particles at firing ranges, starts to explain the stupidity and paranoia of so many gun owners; especially the more fanatic (and presumably those with higher exposure to lead) among them.

    •  Interesting point. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalSal, mindara, Quicklund

      I wonder if there's a research grant available.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:51:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In a recent diary (13+ / 0-)

        I had an exchange with one of our little gun glee club members who was adamant that it was a good parenting to allow his very young son (~7 or 8) to fire weapons; seemingly oblivious to the fact that:

        1. Doing so exposes the child to lead dust and vapors; and

        2. The life-long deleterious effect on humans to lead exposure is most pronounced when exposure happens to children

        •  There is no scientific evidence to support that. (17+ / 0-)

          I am speaking as a forensic scientist who is doing my damnedest to keep up with the peer reviewed professional literature.  

          When a firearm is discharged, the amount of lead dust is so small as to be almost impossible to measure.  You could probably get more lead exposure if you walked past an old house painted with lead based paint.  The gas propellant blows it forward away from the muzzle.  If anything were to be inhaled, it would be a small amount of cordite smoke. The primary ingredients in gunpowder are charcoal, sulfur and potassium nitrate (saltpeter).  You will likely get more charcoal exposure during a cookout in your back yard than from a thousand rounds of ammunition.  Sulfur is found almost everywhere.  Potassium nitrate is a naturally occurring fertilizer and you get exposed to that from your lawn or garden.  

          Additionally, lead is being used less and less in ammunition because of the pollution issue.

          That argument is a non-starter from a scientific standpoint.  There may be other better arguments, but that one  is speculative at best, and not supported by evidence.

          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

          by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:25:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whatever (11+ / 0-)

            Take your "logic," "scientific method" and "critical thinking" somewhere else. We're here to gin up emotional outrage at Goldstein.

            ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
            My Blog
            My wife's woodblock prints

            by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:29:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Huh (5+ / 0-)

            There's a firing range in Bellevue, WA that suggests otherwise.

            As a "forensic scientist" can you tell me what amount of lead exposure EPA has determined to be safe for children?

            •  Indoor ranges are at much higher risk (12+ / 0-)

              for lead exposure.  The lead comes mostly from impacting the targets or backstop, where they can shatter, throwing lead particulates into the air.  Lead at the muzzle end is not the problem...it is the lead at the target end.  It is worse when the backstop is steel or some other metal than if it is dirt or some other absorbent material.  

              Indoor ranges have to do a much better job at air cleaning than many of them do.  The technology is there, but it is expensive, and many businesses (not just shooting ranges) operate on a profit margin that does not allow for major capital improvements.  This is another area where the government could help small business as well as equipment manufacturers if they would.  More SBA grants need to be available and easier to get without a mountain of paperwork and red tape.  Not to mention better funding.

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:05:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Safe lead level for children? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo, lyvwyr101

                I missed that in your essay.

                •  Oh hell -- I'll quit toying with you (5+ / 0-)

                  From EPA:

                  Lead Exposure

                      A blood lead level of 10 µg/dL or greater is considered elevated. However, there is no safe level of lead in blood of children.

                  emphasis mine
                •  No one knows what is safe. (8+ / 0-)

                  IMHO, the less the better, and none is the goal. We are exposed to so many pollutants that a pure study is next to impossible because a completely lead-free control group cannot be isolated.  

                  From a practical and medical standpoint, the CDC sets standards for what is "tolerable" and what is over that line. There are strict protocols for establishing that cutting point. They do that for all kinds of products, including medicines.  

                  Lead has been used for many centuries, and currently the incidence of lead poisoning is lower than it has ever been since they started keeping records.  That is true in the US.  It is still a problem in many third world countries, as well as countries where they do not seem to worry much about pollution.  China, I am looking at you.  

                  The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                  by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:18:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I never (0+ / 0-)

                  realized there ws a safe level of lead for children.

                  Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

                  by lyvwyr101 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 04:47:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Wow. (0+ / 0-)

                So you've gone from 'I am a forensic scientists and there is no evidence to support the idea that lead dust is a problem at shooting ranges' to 'well, naturally indoor shooting ranges can have serious lead problems, and the government could help a lot by giving them money'.

                Even aside from the 'hey, let's give even more government money to the NRA and their allies' thing... doesn't this strike you as a situation where you could, I don't know, apologize for making a statement, as an authority whose word should not be questioned, that is just flat dead wrong? Perhaps you meant to say outdoor ranges, but you didn't, and as a result your comment actually added a negative amount of knowledge to the store of anyone who read it. That's the kind of thing that makes judgements based on rational evidence harder to make, and it's just obnoxious.

                •  That is an argument style (7+ / 0-)

                  I am quite familiar with.  Lawyers use it in court all the time.  Take a statement, twist or spin it so it comes out the other side as completely different from what was originally said or implied.  That is called a Red Herring.  Ignoratio Elenchi, if you prefer.  You score no points for logical fallacies.  

                  Have a nice day.  

                  The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                  by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:27:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                    The person you were replying to said that maybe letting kids shoot guns all the time could be hazardous, because of lead exposure.

                    You said that no, it couldn't ever, that was silly, there was no chance of lead exposure. Let's see: "That argument is a non-starter from a scientific standpoint.  There may be other better arguments, but that one  is speculative at best, and not supported by evidence."

                    I read this. And I thought, oh, well, that's good. I won't worry about that, then. Which is to say, I believed you. And then half an hour later, I happened to come back to that window and read some of the replies. And hey, what do you know: if I took my kids to the local shooting range, I might actually be exposing them to dangerous levels of lead after all. Basically, you gave me some information, information that I believed, that could have caused actual injury. And now you're somehow accusing me of ... what... intentionally misapprehending your comment to score points?

                    Now, okay, I guess I'm a little ignorant here, and it's certainly possible that children are never allowed into indoor shooting ranges these days, or (I'll be charitable) are rarely so allowed. I used the indoor shooting range at a college near where I grew up when I was a kid (well below college-aged), but that was a really long time ago, and things really were different back then. (Overblown-to-the-point-of-insanity concerns about liability, for example.) I have certainly never taken children to any shooting range, indoor or outdoor.

                    So, if that's the case, then that's fine. I don't personally think I should be exposed to high lead levels, because it's still pretty nasty stuff, but at least we're not talking about potentially brain damaging the next generation of Fnords.

                    But I tend to suspect that indoor shooting ranges are just as welcoming to kids as the outdoor ones are, on average. And given that, I am at a loss as to how you could think that your first statement could be construed by any reasonable person as only applying to outdoor ranges. Okay, maybe that's what you meant, but can you really go back and read your comment through from the beginning and say with a clean conscience that that's how an arbitrary reasonable person would read it?

                    Mind you, even if it were, it would seem important to me to mention that there were ranges where lead exposure really is a problem. I realize there are many more outdoor ranges, but especially in urban areas indoor ranges are hardly rare. But then, if I were to rail against people for sins of omission in their comments every time I saw one, I'd be here even more than I am, and nobody wants that.

                    Look, I don't want to think of you as a total loss. I like your taste in music, for one thing (although you really should look into Altan, Lunasa, Danu, and Dervish). But you're not helping much. You made a damn mistake, and you misled some people, including me, and that misinformation was actually about something that really is potentially important. And that made me mad.

                    If you don't want to apologize, that's your own lookout, but accusing me of being some kind of straw-man-attacking lawyer for calling you out on it just makes you look small.

                    •  I certainly did not intend to mislead anyone. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, PavePusher, Tom Seaview

                      This is a rural area, and I don't even know where the nearest indoor range might be.  Indoor ranges are not on my radar.  I have never been in one or seen one.  What I know of them is just what I have read.  

                      All local area ranges, both law enforcement and private, are outdoors.  My twenty-something daughter is with the Sheriff's Department and their range is on a large natural flat place on a windy mountainside. It is a very professional operation and no shooting is allowed unless the range safety officer is present. Sheriff's Department rule is that it is a firing offense to use the range if the safety officer is not present. It is rather isolated, since the County owns a huge tract of land.  There is no danger of a shot going where it should not.  You would have to shoot almost straight up to miss the backstop.  The backstop behind the targets is an area cleared of trees and rocks on the near vertical side of a 4,500 foot mountain.  Even if one managed a shot over the top of the mountain, there is nothing for miles on the other side.

                      None of the local area shooting ranges allow metal targets or reactive targets. That includes both law enforcement and clubs.  Some clubs allow non-members to use the facility for a fee, but rules are beyond strict. None of the  private ranges can be used unless the range safety officer is present.  All targets have to be thin plastic (plastic soft drink bottles) or paper, with the exception of clay pigeons for skeet.  Those kinds of rules are typical, not atypical.  

                      At any rate, I did not mean to mislead anyone, because I never even think about indoor ranges. As I said, this is a rural area and there is no need for any such operation.

                       

                      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                      by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 05:47:12 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, if you are tearing the place apart... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tom Seaview, Otteray Scribe

                      with crowbars and jack-hammers, yeah this:

                      ...if I took my kids to the local shooting range, I might actually be exposing them to dangerous levels of lead after all.
                      ...might be true.

                      Is that what you're doing?

            •  That article was about exposure to the lead... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tom Seaview, Otteray Scribe

              in the materials of the range itself, as it was pulled apart, i.e. direct exposure.

              No link to exposure of shooters (including children) not tearing the range apart.

          •  And -- by the way (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Otteray Scribe

            It wasn't an argument. It was tongue-in-cheek wondering.

            •  OK. Missed the tongue in cheek. (9+ / 0-)

              My kids and grandchildren tell me I have a weird and obscure sense of humor.

              Obviously, no lead is best for humans of any age.  That is why EPA is pushing so hard on the issue.  That is something that has my 100% support.  There is one small speed bump in the road called the Republican Party and their billionaire donors who have an investment in the status quo.

              There are some things that cannot be made without lead at this point in time, but those products are being improved daily. For example, automobile batteries are lead based, and contain quite a lot of lead.  Nothing frosts me more than to find a discarded battery the owner thought was too much trouble to take to a recycling center.  

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:52:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  It's not a 'non-issue' for firing ranges. (7+ / 0-)

            http://www.cdc.gov/...

            http://www.cdc.gov/...

            This report summarizes the results of the EPHP investigation of potential lead exposure in 66 members of shooting teams, aged 7--19 years, who used five indoor firing ranges. The findings suggest that improper design, operation, and maintenance of ranges were the likely cause of elevated BLLs among team members at four of the five firing ranges. Public health officials should identify indoor firing ranges that have not implemented lead-safety measures and offer consultation to reduce the risk for lead exposure among shooters, coaches, and employees.
            Sure, it can be mitigated by preventative measures. But those measure exist exactly because it is an 'issue' that has been scientifically demonstrated to exist.
            •  I agree completely. (9+ / 0-)

              See my comment just upstream in this thread.  Outdoor ranges are less of a problem with aerosols because they are ....well....outdoors.  The whole wide world to disperse in.  However, the less the better for all concerned.  

              Lead is a naturally occurring element, and there is no way to eliminate it from the environment altogether, but we can take steps to mitigate the human factors causing problems.  As I have said before, the biggest speed bump in that road is the Republican Party and their billionaire enablers who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:09:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Lead exposure is a problem (0+ / 0-)

            if you're on the wrong end of the gun.

            "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

            by rwgate on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:05:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  If the ammo is copper- or steel-jacketed... (0+ / 0-)

          no lead dust.

          If using non-jacketed lead ammo... cite to the studies linking shooting to lead exposure, please.

      •  No grants (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo

        I think research like this is a against the law.

    •  There could be something to that. (5+ / 0-)

      I just caught a snippet on the news yesterday that described a report detailing how overall violent crime rates have dropped since lead was removed from gasoline.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

      by lcbo on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:55:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maxomai

        Indoor ranges have strict clean up policies and outdoor ranges wouldn't have airborne lead issues. The issue there is lead poisoning trees and wildlife. But the rounds don't strike anything that would cause lead dust to enter the air.

        Higher velocity rounds often have lead cores but are jacketed with a stronger metal to prevent deforming in the barrel.

        Additionally, more and more ammunition is lead free for various reasons.

      •  There has shown to be a statistical correlation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mudfud27

        between lower incidents of violent behavior and removing lead from gasoline, as well as getting lead out of paint.  Ammunition makers are in the process of getting lead out of ammunition. The EPA has been taking the lead on this and pushing manufacturers of lead based products to find alternatives.  

        Aviation gas still has lead in it.  100 octane LL means that 100 octane avgas is "low lead," but has lead nevertheless.  Reciprocating airplane engines do not like lead free gas, and it is literally a life or death safety issue.   If an airplane engine starts sputtering or quits, you cannot pull over on the shoulder and park.  The lower lead in avgas is not as polluting as it used to be when fully leaded.  

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:42:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which might lead one to think that lead (0+ / 0-)

          poisoning happens before an affinity for guns developes. And explain it.

          •  That is a logical fallacy. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishbone

            Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, to be specific.

            This is supposed to be a reality based community.  We need to be careful to not make assumptions that are based on logical fallacies.  Makes us all look bad.

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 09:49:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The NRA and the Roman Empire (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo

      Two massive power blocks taken down by a mutual taste for lead?

      This is about as interesting an idea as has appeared on DK.

    •  There could be something to this. (0+ / 0-)

      Google "lead poisoning shooting range"

      I always prefer to believe the best of everybody, it saves so much trouble.

      by Joy of Fishes on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:51:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And on and on and on. (12+ / 0-)
    if you're already at gunpoint, you're kind of stuck
    Exactly.
    Having been faced with the ugly end more than once, I can attest, it happens so fast and so unexpectedly, that if you don't already have a loaded gun in your hand already racked, you don't stand a chance of defending yourself from a gun with a gun. In your pocket or in a holster is too far away, too late.
    And sitting around all day with a loaded cocked weapon in your hands at all times makes it hard to get anything else done. Not to mention that it marks you as a delusional paranoid and a hazard to public (and your own) safety.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:49:25 AM PST

    •  Martial arts. (4+ / 0-)

      I turned around once to be face to face with some dumbass who just walked into my house.

      If I had had a gun I would never have been able to access it to use it.

      martial arts are instant!

      I slipped behind him, grappbed his coat at the back of the neck and at the bottom and hustled him through the house and threw him down the stairs into the yard.

      Dumbfuck crawled into the neighbors house through a back window....and met their chow chow.

      tee hee,.

      More people should study martial arts.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:09:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chows are nasty animals (0+ / 0-)

        I never met one that wasn't a little twitchy. And I LOVE dogs and 99% of them love me.

        •  Live in a city for a while (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tommymet

          You would be amazed at how much better-behaved dogs are if they are constantly socialized from puppyhood.

          I have lived in San Francisco for a while, and there is literally not a single breed that I thought of as 'naturally standoffish' before I moved here that I still think of in the same way now. Sure, I still meet standoffish chows, and shiba inus, and so forth. But they are the exceptions rather than the rules. The majority of all of them are friendly here.

          It's all in the socialization.

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        Everyone should study martial arts.

        Assuming, of course, they can. Which, for a lot of people, isn't necessarily the case.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:40:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So far, diplomacy has worked for me. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kareylou

        "Here! See? I'll show you... No money in my wallet, I'm broker than you...."

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:34:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The old Manchester Union-Leader (0+ / 0-)

    used to have a front page inset called "The ARMED Citizen" (their caps) with about the stuff you'd expect. They stopped running the inset years ago, maybe because the old editor, Nacky Loeb, either couldn't find anything to put in it or thought it was too liberal.

  •  Meth and a gun (9+ / 0-)

    What could possibly go wrong?

  •  Comment on #9 (15+ / 0-)

    So I decided to read a few. Stopped on my 2nd, #9. So this happened at the doctor's office. (http://www.cfmkv.com/). The excuse for packing in there was the "need to defend the office against threats".

    Seriously? Unless they're performing abortions (in which case they would have to defend themselves against other right-wing loons), WHO threatens a family medical practice???

    You didn't give my son enough Tylenol for his eeer infection! I'm gonna keeeeel all o' yew...

    How much fear do you have to have in your life to start thinking this way...?

    Mind boggling.

    •  This is the logical result of NRA and RKBA (11+ / 0-)

      fear-mongering.  Everyone must have a gun because everyone is at risk and everyone else has a gun so you better get one too.

      Once you understand the NRA's reason for being, it is pretty clear why they use the tactics they use.  

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

      by PsychoSavannah on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:19:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting question (0+ / 0-)

      First thing that comes to mind: someone wanting drugs.

      Unlikely? Sure. But if there's one thing one learns from customer service, it's that there's all kinds of people out there.

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:32:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok... I'll bite (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RadGal70, kareylou, JVolvo, Calamity Jean

        Even though the article specifically said "threats against the office"... drug addicts don't call and say : I'm coming over there to steal drugs.

        But even taking that scenario...

        Instead of just giving the drugs away, capturing the stuff on cameras, and letting the police do their job afterwards, they're going to start a firefight in an office full of children???

        Cause if the guy is there for drugs, he gets drugs and leaves. The less resistance to that, the better. I'm pretty sure that's what the police would advise you to do.

        Which leads me to another question - are these threats real, or hypothetical? If they were real, shouldn't they... I don't know, hire a guard? Notify the police?

      •  Sure, but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rwgate

        Not accounting for the intelligence level of the average gun owner/drug addict, most physicians' offices don't have any of the drugs people use for recreation.

        •  It seems to me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Helena Handbag

          that the average guy on drugs would hit a pharmacy rather than a doctor's office.  Actually, the average guy on drugs would most likely hit the local 7-Eleven, to get money to buy drugs on the street.

          "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

          by rwgate on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:16:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The person with the 'concealed'... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rwgate, JVolvo, PsychoSavannah

      gun is the biggest threat that office is going to see.  Which is true for anyone carrying in public. You are the threat.

      •  Precisely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        goObama

        Here in AZ you can carry a gun anywhere, concealed or not, at anytime.  Want to carry your AK47 into Wal-Mart?  Sure, go ahead.  Think that you need that Glock on your hip when you go into Taco Bell?  Why not?  You never know what terrorists or cold blooded killers are going to come rampaging through, demanding that they get their tacos right away.

        People carrying guns are considered by 99% of the population as a threat, not a protector.  After all the shootings in public places I look at anyone with a gun as a possible shooter.  Not doing so allows more incidents like Newtown to happen.  Should I call the the cops when I see someone carrying a gun?  How can I tell what their intentions are?  The safest bet is to call the police.  If I don't call the police, and the person turns out to be a shooter, do I bear some of the responsibility for his actions?

        "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

        by rwgate on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:27:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ratcityreprobate

      But just two weeks or so before this incident, a patient walked in and shot his urologist to death in Newport Beach, CA.

  •  gun manufacturers need to take a note from (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet

    alcohol manufacturers.

    Just attach the following phrase to your advertising and your product:

    Please enjoy this product responsibly
    that's all it takes.

    Alcohol (I know you all don't want to hear this, but it's of interest to people pride themselves on logical and principled stands on important issues) causes a lot of deaths and fuels a rather amazing amount of general mayhem but because of the drive by alcohol manufacturers to address the death and mayhem caused by their fine products.

    it's gotta work for guns.

    :/

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 06:57:13 AM PST

    •  Have you ever bought a firearm? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maxomai, Patrick Costighan, annieli

      I ask this because, if you have, you might not have read the first several pages of the instuctions.

      What you (rightly) recommend is already there and inescapable.

      Example here.

      Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

      by Tom Seaview on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:28:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The other side is (4+ / 0-)

        I read the manual every time.

        I make it a point to take apart the unloaded firearm and inspect it for wear, rust, and other damage before I re-assemble it and take it to the range for the first time.

        But there are a lot of dumbasses out there.

        As I've said elsewhere, a lot of good could be done by ensuring that people knew to at least RTFM. Licensing is one way to help people understand this. PSAs are another.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:35:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, I haven't but I am unsurprised its there. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Patrick Costighan, JVolvo

        We can't make people read the instructions.

        I mean, why in the hell do hairdryers have a warning "DO NOT USE IN SHOWER" on them?

        Some people really are just too stupid.

        We cannot be held liable for their shortcomings.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:59:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The question should be how many of those in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo

        the 51 incidents above read the friggin' manual for their firearm.

        •  Not sure about those 51... (0+ / 0-)

          ...but the other 279,999,949 firearms in private hands didn't shoot anyone yesterday, so the instructions must be at least somewhat effective.

          Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

          by Tom Seaview on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:30:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I sincerely doubt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miggles

            that the other 279 million firearms in private hands were all pulled out of their respective storage places during the day.  In fact, I'd say that only a miniscule number of them are pulled out in the course of a year.

            It's what happens with the ones that are pulled out the create the problem.

            "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

            by rwgate on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:32:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  This isn't just lately, either (6+ / 0-)

    Guns and stupid/careless people have been a problem since they were invented.

    That execrable hack, con-man David Barton (Glenn Beck's pet "historian"), recently proclaimed that back in the Days Of Yore, little kids were trained to use guns in school and stuff, and there weren't hardly any accidents he could find. As usual, he was looking in his nether regions instead of actual historical sources, as detailed by the estimable Chris Rodda over at Freethought blogs.

    Colorado is working on some gun restriction laws, including some up for debate today, and I hope the Democrat-controlled legislature fends off the insane La Pierre-inspired emotional attacks to get them passed.


    + + + That crazy neighbor, you know, the one with all those cats

    by cvannatta on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:04:16 AM PST

  •  Was Chris Dorner a "responsible" gun owner? (11+ / 0-)

    Thank you DW for compiling and presenting this list for us.

    If I have counted correctly, Chris Dorner shot a total of six people, killing four of them.  four dead at one time is generlly considered the definition of a "mass murder" event, tho' Mr. Dorner didn't kill all his victims at one time.

    So, is Mr. Dorner what gun enthusiasts call a "responsible gun owner"?  Mr. Dorner was a former member of law enforcement, and a service veteran.  He had advanced training in weapon safety and use.  He had a gun licence and legally owned his guns.  

    All these are reasons why gun enthusiasts say responsible people like Mr. Dorner should not be forced to suffer any restrictions in his enjoyment of guns because to the irresponsible action of other more deranged people.

    Interestingly, gun enthusiasts now say that Mr. Dorner is now one of those irresponsible deranged people whose actions should not be viewed as representative of all the "responsible" gun owners out there who are law-abiding and have advanced training and in no way should be forced to suffer any restriction of their enoyment of guns.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:08:36 AM PST

    •  Highly trained, great marksman...so, by (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mudfud27, rwgate

      every metric, yes he was a very responsible gun owner.  

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

      by PsychoSavannah on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:45:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Chris Dorner was a responsible gun owner... (6+ / 0-)

      ... who was simply applying the NRA solution to conflict resolution.

    •  Excellent point (5+ / 0-)

      They're ALL responsible... until one of them goes on a rampage and shoots 30 people in the head.

      Nobody ever makes a point that the distinction they're making, responsible vs. (temporarily) insane, is impossible to determine in the real world. Anything that would have flagged most of these mass murderers would flag at least 3/4 of the "responsible" gun owners.

      You know, like every time somebody says anything to the effect of "I'm going to start murdering people if they threaten to take my guns away"... that itself should qualify for an immediate disarmament. Or calls for 2nd amendment remedies. Or ... I'm sure we could make a whole list.

      I mean, if you love your guns so much that you'd rather die in a firefight than part with them... that's insane by itself. I know of no other THING that people would die for so readily.
      I love tennis. I would be incredibly sad if I couldn't play anymore. But if the government said I needed to turn my racquets in (because of increasing incidents of tennis mass murder), my life wouldn't stop. I'd move on, knowing that if everybody does the same, lives are saved. Even a single life is more precious to me than any single OBJECT I can name.

      Why is the NRA stance not openly called crazy?

      •  Protecting profits (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rwgate, Helena Handbag, Calamity Jean

        The gun industry is not crazy; they are simply protecting their profits.

        What is crazy is that we the people allow our law-makers to receive financial gifts from the gun industry, in exchange for which our law-makers refuse to pass any kind of law that might lessen the profits of the gun industry.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:23:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Chris Dorner (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rwgate, Calamity Jean

      Is the absolute epitome of "responsible gun ownership".

  •  Although I respect your reasons for (5+ / 0-)

    leaving out the murder/suicide category, I hope you reconsider your decision as it was a very useful resource for me to use in combating gun nut propaganda, as I work/travel 12 hour days AND am too lazy to look the incidents up myself. Well done as always!

  •  Yikes! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, ratcityreprobate

    El Paso County and Colorado Springs, CO (which is in El Paso) have 4 entries this week. One of the most conservative locations in Colorado... perhaps a correlation?

  •  What a difference a school shooting makes (3+ / 0-)

    This site was pretty much in the hands of RKBA'ers as far as the gun conversation went and now it's turned 180 degrees.

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:52:41 AM PST

  •  All subjects from the stories listed were (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mudfud27

    alleged graduates of the new NRA-sponsored safety training. Their promotional video is illuminating. See

    I discover myself on the verge of a usual mistake. ― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

    by dannyboy1 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 07:53:46 AM PST

  •  you think that maybe if I setup a crowd (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaraJones, kareylou

    Source database like they use on over at flushrush but instead tailor it towards gun violence that people would crowd source it?

    I bet we could hammer down some crazy good statistics once past data started getting entered as well.

    Hmmmmm I think I have space and traffic capacity on a non production vmware 4.1

    If there is some interest I could have a simple thing up by end of month maybe

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:00:02 AM PST

  •  But it's all good, because freedom #USAEffYeah (0+ / 0-)
  •  I really appreciate your diaries and tweets (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chocoholic

    on this subject, though it really must take a toll on you.  Thank you.

    Oh, I used to be disgusted
    Now I try to be amused
    ~~ Elvis Costello

    by smileycreek on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 08:44:18 AM PST

  •  Again, the Gun-Idiots Refuter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    This week we had clinical evidence that protection against "an opressive and tyranical government" by having a formidable arsenal against the government is a recipe for suicide.

    Dorner, whose grievances may have had some legitimacy, is proof that the proliferation of guns assures self immolation...and he was a trained sharpshooter. At the end of the day, all he accomplished was to make the government agents hysterical enough to shoot first and ask questions later.
    Ask those women who were shot in the wrong color and wrong model of truck what the think of trigger-happy agents of government....I forget: all is well, the cops promised them a used truck.

    We  await the Ballad of the Last Crusader.

  •  Thank you again for these important summaries (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rwgate

    of your research and reporting.

    The public, and truly responsible gun owners, need this help to get out of their denial about how there is NO DISINCENTIVE against lazy, stupid, compulsive, and dangerous behavior with and around guns.

    Until there are appropriate loss of rights (either temporarily or permanently in some cases), for all the yahoos and negligent people, truly responsible gun owners are easily tarred with a broad brush and feathered.

    At a minimum, whenever your gun or a gun you are holding or a gun you are responsible for, discharges a bullet that hits yourself, someone else, or someone else's property you should face an immediate and severe restriction on your rights.  

    The PROOF is carried in the bullet.

  •  That one in Tigard, OR is just a few blocks (0+ / 0-)

    from the apartment I lived in not that long ago.

    Yeesh.

  •  Not to mention all the family pets ... (0+ / 0-)

    that are GunFAIL victims.

    A Palatine man wanted to lure coyotes with a deer carcass in his backyard and shoot them, but he killed a neighbor’s curious German shepherd instead.
    ChiTrib

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site