Nice Planet 2011

[duper]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

From what I have read in Seattle's local press (It's a long story, but my job requires me to spend a significant amount of time perusing local Seattle news) the feeling is that because no one has been criminally charged for this before, they are charging for something that legally they think they can stretch it to. (That's not guess, that's what the news says) The guess part is that in the future, they will try for more serious charges. The thing is, the future may be the present, because sometime this week, I don't remember what day, while another guy in or around Seattle was filling his gas tank, his 3-yr-old climbed out of his child seat, grabbed the handgun from under the driver's seat, and killed himself with it.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

From what I have read in Seattle's local press (It's a long story, but my job requires me to spend a significant amount of time perusing local Seattle news) the feeling is that because no one has been criminally charged for this before, they are charging for something that legally they think they can stretch it to. (That's not guess, that's what the news says) The guess part is that in the future, they will try for more serious charges. The thing is, the future may be the present, because sometime this week, I don't remember what day, while another guy in or around Seattle was filling his gas tank, his 3-yr-old climbed out of his child seat, grabbed the handgun from under the driver's seat, and killed himself with it.

A continuing (and growing) problem in this country is the failure to recognize that rights bring responsibilities. In the case at hand, the boy got a loaded .45 from the glove box of his mother's car. He didn't point it at the little girl. It was in his backpack and discharged when the boy slammed the backpack on a desk. Now I ask you, who's responsible here? Easy, that dope smoking drug dealing "mother." No question. In what galaxy is it acceptable for a 9 year old to have access to a loaded .45? I hope they make the case against the "mother" and either the "father" or the boyfriend, whoever is more negligent.

I mentioned before about the interview I did with a Houston surgeon after a cluster of little kid shootings. He pointed out that what frequently happens is the kids are sitting on the couch, closely examining the gun, when it goes off, hitting one (or more) in the face or head. If they aren't killed outright, they face possible brain damage and/or hideous disfigurment. Nice. And the adults in their lives all have a "right" to a firearm. Well, those little kids have a right not to be shot in the head, too.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I don't get why we don't have a requirement to learn gun safety before you can purchase a gun. I started shooting somewhere areound 7 yrs old and before I touched a weapon I had to know all the rules inside and out. Letting people with no knowledge own something that can kill you so they can 'protect' themselves makes me crazy. How many of those people would actually be competent to use the weapon in the right way if under duress? I bet most of them wouldn't remember to flick the safety. (that is if they have it on in the first place)

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I don't get why we don't have a requirement to learn gun safety before you can purchase a gun. I started shooting somewhere areound 7 yrs old and before I touched a weapon I had to know all the rules inside and out. Letting people with no knowledge own something that can kill you so they can 'protect' themselves makes me crazy. How many of those people would actually be competent to use the weapon in the right way if under duress? I bet most of them wouldn't remember to flick the safety. (that is if they have it on in the first place)

You don't understand. Anything that infringes for even 1 second my GOD-given inalienable right to obtain a gun will be met with harsh retribution, sir. From my COLD DEAD HANDS!!

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

You don't understand. Anything that infringes for even 1 second my GOD-given inalienable right to obtain a gun will be met with harsh retribution, sir. From my COLD DEAD HANDS!!

Well half of them will be dead hands cos they barely know the business end from the back

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I don't get why we don't have a requirement to learn gun safety before you can purchase a gun. I started shooting somewhere areound 7 yrs old and before I touched a weapon I had to know all the rules inside and out. Letting people with no knowledge own something that can kill you so they can 'protect' themselves makes me crazy. How many of those people would actually be competent to use the weapon in the right way if under duress? I bet most of them wouldn't remember to flick the safety. (that is if they have it on in the first place)

I have no problem with that, although I doubt it would pass constitutional muster. One of the most annoying fantasies of many "gun people" is this notion that "if only someone had a gun with them, it would have turned out differently." Perhaps. On the other hand, it could have turned out worse. This was expressed frequently after the shootings at Virginia Tech. And maybe if one of the kids had been armed he could have plugged Woo Tang Klan and saved a lot of lives. On the other hand, in a "target rich environment," how confident should we be that a college kid could get off a meaningful shot without killing an innocent?

Remember when that guy drove his pickup literally through the window of a Luby's cafeteria and began shooting? IIRC, about a dozen people killed. Again, we heard that notion "if only somebody had been armed." Well, cops shoot cops from time to time. Again, how confident should we be that somebody having the pot roast special is gonna put that guy down? My mother should take one in the head to preserve some guy's 2nd Amendment rights?

What's annoying about this day dreaming is the "gun people" never stop to consider a bad outcome. Never, in fact, consider there's any possible outcome other than putting the bad guy down. This is wishful thinking on a massive scale. And to me it's the flip side of the reactionaries whose totally predictable response to any gun incident is to propose new laws. Like the wind up monkey with the cymbals.

 

[duper]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

A continuing (and growing) problem in this country is the failure to recognize that rights bring responsibilities. In the case at hand, the boy got a loaded .45 from the glove box of his mother's car. He didn't point it at the little girl. It was in his backpack and discharged when the boy slammed the backpack on a desk. Now I ask you, who's responsible here? Easy, that dope smoking drug dealing "mother." No question. In what galaxy is it acceptable for a 9 year old to have access to a loaded .45? I hope they make the case against the "mother" and either the "father" or the boyfriend, whoever is more negligent.

I mentioned before about the interview I did with a Houston surgeon after a cluster of little kid shootings. He pointed out that what frequently happens is the kids are sitting on the couch, closely examining the gun, when it goes off, hitting one (or more) in the face or head. If they aren't killed outright, they face possible brain damage and/or hideous disfigurment. Nice. And the adults in their lives all have a "right" to a firearm. Well, those little kids have a right not to be shot in the head, too.

I agree that the mother and her boyfriend are responsible. The problem is with legal precedent. Judges, in general, (contrary to many people's opinion of SCOTUS justices) don't like to set precedent, so since there is no precedent in Washington for charging the mother with a real crime, they have to work up to it. At least, that's the sense I get.

Even in the other case I mentioned, it is probably almost exactly as you describe in the 2nd paragraph of your post. Kid knew there was a gun under the seat, he grabbed it, took a good close look at it, probably pushed the trigger while looking down the barrel. Sad stuff. And yeah, since all legal precedent, as well as arguably the 2nd amendment, point to the right to own just about any kind of gun you want, there needs to be a SERIOUS way to get people to make sure their kids who are too young to understand guns can't hurt anyone with them. I agree with you that serious criminal charges should be the way.

If leaving a gun and a child together in a car aren't reckless endangerment, I'm not sure what is.

 

[duper]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

My dad has a great theory about the second amendment, that I think everyone might enjoy.

The 2nd amendment is fundamentally about protecting ourselves from the government if necessary, or ensuring that if the military fails to protect us, we can protect ourselves from other governments. But handguns are worthless for that, so the 2nd amendment isn't really about handguns. And it certainly isn't about hunting rifles, which would be almost as worthless as handguns. With assault rifles, maybe you're starting to get there, but what it really does for us, is guarantee every American the right to own weapons of mass destruction. Because that is some **** you can use to protect yourself against the government.

Now, that said, it might be good to have some regulations in place to ensure that, most of the time, no cities get accidentally decimated by Mr. Smith's thermonuclear device.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

If we need to pass a test to get a license for a car why is is unconstitutional to make sure people know the basics of a weapon? This always baffles me. THe slippery slope nonsense makes me crazy. You would think the NRA would have someone intelligent enough to find a way to make that work instead making arguments against that are so flimsy it makes people like me, who don't object to guns, want to put a bag over my head.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I agree that the mother and her boyfriend are responsible. The problem is with legal precedent. Judges, in general, (contrary to many people's opinion of SCOTUS justices) don't like to set precedent, so since there is no precedent in Washington for charging the mother with a real crime, they have to work up to it. At least, that's the sense I get.

Even in the other case I mentioned, it is probably almost exactly as you describe in the 2nd paragraph of your post. Kid knew there was a gun under the seat, he grabbed it, took a good close look at it, probably pushed the trigger while looking down the barrel. Sad stuff. And yeah, since all legal precedent, as well as arguably the 2nd amendment, point to the right to own just about any kind of gun you want, there needs to be a SERIOUS way to get people to make sure their kids who are too young to understand guns can't hurt anyone with them. I agree with you that serious criminal charges should be the way.

If leaving a gun and a child together in a car aren't reckless endangerment, I'm not sure what is.

That's what Jack McCoy would say.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

If we need to pass a test to get a license for a car why is is unconstitutional to make sure people know the basics of a weapon? This always baffles me. THe slippery slope nonsense makes me crazy. You would think the NRA would have someone intelligent enough to find a way to make that work instead making arguments against that are so flimsy it makes people like me, who don't object to guns, want to put a bag over my head.

I don't own a gun, never will, don't know anybody who does, and last fired one in basic training. Yet I live in a city where it's not totally unusual to see a young couple in the mall on Saturday and he's packing heat. I've got nothing against guns, most gun owners are more appalled than I am at these annecdotes about carelessness.
For the longest time, both sides in the "gun debate" were reluctant to go to the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment. Well, now the court has ruled that there is a right to own guns. No such right exists for driving a car, for examle, which means to me gun ownership is in a different category.

You mention the NRA. I'm old enough to remember when their focus was on the joys of shooting sports and passing knowledge and pleasure of owning guns down from father to son. And about safety and the responsibilities gun owners have to protect the lives of innocents. That was then. This is now. After the murder of 5 ATF agents at Waco, Wayne LaPierre referred to them as "jack booted government thugs." These were law enforcement officers attempting to serve a legal warrant, gunned down in cold blood, and that NRA clown referred to them as "thugs." This is what prompted George H. W. Bush to tear up his lifetime NRA membership card.

In the abstract I have no problem with mandatory gun safety training laws (similar, I presume, to the training most people are required to take for concealed carry permits). Who knows, it might help. . .but I believe only at the margins. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Is the kind of person who leaves a loaded weapon lying around where children can get a hold of it, likely to have his behavior altered by the training? Some, probably. But not nearly enough, IMO.

 

[UncleRay]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I don't get why we don't have a requirement to learn gun safety before you can purchase a gun.

Because that works so well with cars.

But I agree with the sentiment.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I have no problem with that, although I doubt it would pass constitutional muster. One of the most annoying fantasies of many "gun people" is this notion that "if only someone had a gun with them, it would have turned out differently."

Well, this one turned out differently.

Edit: This one might be even funnier.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Well, this one turned out differently.

Edit: This one might be even funnier.

Then there was the time when a demented guy attacked a Houston parking lot attendant with a sword. The problem was, this was the parking lot outside HPD headquarters, and the attack occurred during a shift change. I kid you not, the dude was shot about 50 times! Uh, he didn't make it.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

The Tribune reports there are some innacuracies involved with this video. Midway, not O'Hare. And we've changed the rules since this particular humiliation, so this might not happen to the kid now. But we can't be sure. Nevertheless, this is a little boy subjected among other things, to having a government thug wipe his back with an explosive detecting Stridex pad. How do these a*sholes sleep at night?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...air-not-all-it-seems-20120319,0,6554763.story

 

[Almington]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

The Tribune reports there are some innacuracies involved with this video. Midway, not O'Hare. And we've changed the rules since this particular humiliation, so this might not happen to the kid now. But we can't be sure. Nevertheless, this is a little boy subjected among other things, to having a government thug wipe his back with an explosive detecting Stridex pad. How do these a*sholes sleep at night?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...air-not-all-it-seems-20120319,0,6554763.story

Do we really think that the terrorist wouldn't try and use a small child in a wheelchair to sneak a bomb past security? I don't. While I wouldn't want to go up on youtube for giving a toddler a pat-down, I'd much rather not be the screener who allowed a bomb through security that resulted in having a plane crash.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Do we really think that the terrorist wouldn't try and use a small child in a wheelchair to sneak a bomb past security? I don't. While I wouldn't want to go up on youtube for giving a toddler a pat-down, I'd much rather not be the screener who allowed a bomb through security that resulted in having a plane crash.

Except that TSA hasn't yet uncovered a terrorist and at the same time allowed several to get past their screening. This is "security theatre," designed to give people a sense of safety and based on the entirely false premise that the likelihood of someone being a terrorist is spread evenly through society. Bosh. The Israelis don't pat down or otherwise humiliate children and old ladies with ostomy bags, they're surrounded by enemies, yet they haven't had an incident, because they use highly trained, well paid individuals (as opposed to TCBY dropouts) to screen passengers. Some of those passengers wind up being patted down or otherwise screened, but most don't. What passes for airport security now is an expensive, PC exercise which humiliates thousands of Americans every single day, and does practically nothing to lower the liklihood of an "event."

Using your standard, "better be safe than sorry," the screener in this case was derelict in his duty. He should have stripped the kid and given him a cavity search. Then we'd really be sure he wasn't carrying a bomb.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Do we really think that the terrorist wouldn't try and use a small child in a wheelchair to sneak a bomb past security? I don't. While I wouldn't want to go up on youtube for giving a toddler a pat-down, I'd much rather not be the screener who allowed a bomb through security that resulted in having a plane crash.

This. Everyone always whines but terrorists don't have a conscience.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

This. Everyone always whines but terrorists don't have a conscience.

Then why not strip and cavity search everyone boarding a plane? Do you see no limit to the government here? None? Despite the fact that these measures are doomed to fail because the terrorists simply respond to new indignities for the flying public by changing their MO? Shoe bomber. Panty bomber, etc. The methods we employ should be those with the highest liklihood of intercepting terrorists and the lowest liklihood of humiliating innocent citizens. What we're doing now fails both of those tests.

And, for the record, I don't consider it "whining" when a TSA goon humiliates an old lady with a full ostomy bag. I attribute that sort of behavior to folks wearing black uniforms in a different era.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Except that TSA hasn't yet uncovered a terrorist and at the same time allowed several to get past their screening. This is "security theatre," designed to give people a sense of safety and based on the entirely false premise that the likelihood of someone being a terrorist is spread evenly through society. Bosh. The Israelis don't pat down or otherwise humiliate children and old ladies with ostomy bags, they're surrounded by enemies, yet they haven't had an incident, because they use highly trained, well paid individuals (as opposed to TCBY dropouts) to screen passengers. Some of those passengers wind up being patted down or otherwise screened, but most don't. What passes for airport security now is an expensive, PC exercise which humiliates thousands of Americans every single day, and does practically nothing to lower the liklihood of an "event."

Using your standard, "better be safe than sorry," the screener in this case was derelict in his duty. He should have stripped the kid and given him a cavity search. Then we'd really be sure he wasn't carrying a bomb.

They never blew up the Pentagon either. Not saying that every screener is behaving as they should but the schtick of every agent is awful is getting old. How many appropriate screenings occur compared to how many are bad? There are bad people in every profession. If someone dies in the hospital do we assume every Dr in there is going to have a bad outcome?