Gun Legislation

[Stinger]

Give it up vrede....everyone here and following this thread knows that you are a liar and this time you stuck you foot so far down your throat it should show up in your next BM.

Actually, no one here knows that. I've never seen Vrede lie. Stubbornly pursue a point? Yes. Lie? No. Err? Yes. Lie? No.
I have seen you screw up any number of times and refuse to admit it. I've also seen you claim victory in the midst of epic failure.

As he sold four handguns in a South Side parking lot last year, Levaine Tanksley boasted to his customer that there were plenty more illicit weapons available, investigators say.

Doesn't say the customer ordered the handguns. Sounds more like a random sale to someone who, now that they're buddies, can place an order. Sounds to me like he's selling guns randomly but, by taking a list, is ready to make official straw purchases.

So please vrede explain for the class how this "CLEARLY" shows the purchases were made "with the intent to sell to some as yet unknown other (like every gun store or gun trader does)"

[Stinger]

From Brown University, via PolitiFact:

PolitiFact Georgia also found a 2011 study conducted by Brown University economist Brian Knight that explored the state-to-state flow of illegal firearms in the country and examined the role of state gun regulations. That study, also based on ATF crime gun data, found that guns flow from states with less restrictive gun laws into states with restrictive laws. For example, the report found that the largest firearm suppliers to New York are Florida, Georgia and Virginia.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/state ... -traffick/

You buys your guns in Florida, with its lax gun sales laws, run it up the Iron Pipeline (I-95 -- so called because of the amount of arms transported up I-95 to New York), and sells your guns on the streets of New York. Buy in quantity, legally, and haul them to New York to sell to anyone who has the cash. Not technically a straw purchase unless you had a customer lined up ahead of time ... which does happen.

Then you have Armslist -- a Craigslist for gun buyers -- where 54% of sellers openly admit they would sell to people who say they can't pass background checks ... a felony. An NYPD study shows Armslist to be a "major conduit for illegal sales." Mother Jones

In one case, Radcliffe Haughton posted an ad on Armslist:

Looking to buy ASAP. Prefer full size, any caliber. Email ASAP. I constantly check my emails. Hoping it has a high mag capacity with the handgun, ammo, accessories. I am a serious buyer. Email me ASAP. Have cash now and looking to buy now. I am mobile.

He got his gun ... but he had posted the ad three days after his wife obtained a restraining order for domestic violence. Once Haughton got his gun, he went to the spa where his wife worked, killed her and two more, wounded four, and then killed himself.

No one was charged because it was a private sale, and no one could prove the seller knew the buyer couldn't pass a background check.

And we don't need any new gun laws.

[rstrong]

It's not quite as cool if condo owners rather than housekeepers get the reward, but I still think they should get it.

More on the reward... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162- ... picks=true

Reward in Christopher Dorner Manhunt Shrinks

Brave Heroes Denied $1.3 Million Reward For Finding Killer Cop

Three brave heroes who survived their encounters with Dorner have since claimed the reward, but the stingy governments and groups who offered the money now refuse to pay because Dorner somehow didn't survive an army of cops roasting and demolishing the mountain cabin he holed up inside for his last stand.
[...]
Now the so-called community leaders who offered the reward are saying, "Ehh, Dorner didn't actually make it to being convicted, so maybe we'll just keep this money."

Apparently though, the LAPD itself is planning to honor reward offers. It's the city of Riverside that withdrew the reward. Irvine is still planning to pay it out as is LA.

[Ombudsman]

Cut him a little slack. He is an imbecile after all. He can't help it.

So says the little feist dog that runs out yapping after the big dogs have scared away the coyote....LOL Crawl back under the porch idiot...you have already proven your ignorance. Nice job of riding o'really's coat tails though.

You're hardly a coyote but at least you can admit you were easily chased off even though you still can't seem to grasp the pouncing you received.

[O Really]

Meanwhile:

Father cleaning shotgun shoots 10-year-old son in the head in N.C.

First rule of gun handling...be CERTAIN the gun is unloaded until actually intending to fire. That means check, re-check, and then check again. A tragic mistake but no criminal intent. Fortunately for you, one can not be arrested for stupid.

Consider: a generic (not state-specific, but still mostly applicable) description of the hree elements that must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

In this case, element 1 is obvious. With regard to element 2, every gun expert in the country will say it is inherently dangerous to clean a loaded firearm, or to point one in the general direction of a child. With regard to element 3, the shooter has either been to training or he hasn't. If he has, he would have been told over and over about the fundamental safe handling rules; if he hasn't, he knew or should have known handling firearms around children, without having taken training, would constitute a threat to their safety.

Without getting off on cars, or "law abiding citizens" or Second Amendment tangents, take the facts of the incident, compare them to the required elements, and explain why that person as well as those who commit similar acts under similar circumstances, should not be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Yo, Mad - if you want to take a few minutes out from nit-picking with Vrede and address the previous question, I've re-copied it, above.

[Mad American]

Cut him a little slack. He is an imbecile after all. He can't help it.

So says the little feist dog that runs out yapping after the big dogs have scared away the coyote....LOL Crawl back under the porch idiot...you have already proven your ignorance. Nice job of riding o'really's coat tails though.

You're hardly a coyote but at least you can admit you were easily chased off even though you still can't seem to grasp the pouncing you received.

Ook, looky...3:45 PM I guess school let out and the feist dog comes back riding on other's coat tails and acting like he actually did something again. Tell me ombuds"man" does your mama know you are online?

[Mad American]

Meanwhile:

Father cleaning shotgun shoots 10-year-old son in the head in N.C.

First rule of gun handling...be CERTAIN the gun is unloaded until actually intending to fire. That means check, re-check, and then check again. A tragic mistake but no criminal intent. Fortunately for you, one can not be arrested for stupid.

Consider: a generic (not state-specific, but still mostly applicable) description of the hree elements that must be satisfied in order for someone to be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:

1. Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

In this case, element 1 is obvious. With regard to element 2, every gun expert in the country will say it is inherently dangerous to clean a loaded firearm, or to point one in the general direction of a child. With regard to element 3, the shooter has either been to training or he hasn't. If he has, he would have been told over and over about the fundamental safe handling rules; if he hasn't, he knew or should have known handling firearms around children, without having taken training, would constitute a threat to their safety.

Without getting off on cars, or "law abiding citizens" or Second Amendment tangents, take the facts of the incident, compare them to the required elements, and explain why that person as well as those who commit similar acts under similar circumstances, should not be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Yo, Mad - if you want to take a few minutes out from nit-picking with Vrede and address the previous question, I've re-copied it, above.

I've not ignored your question O'really...I have actually been giving it some thought before trying to answer and the only answer I can come up with is...I do not know. The only thing I can think of is in relation to a combination of number 2 & 3...an unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a hammer or golf club so there is no "inherent danger" IF the gun is unloaded. With that in mind one would have to PROVE that failing to check the gun first was indeed done with "reckless disregard". Couple that with number 3 and if the person says they did not know the gun was loaded then they could not know their conduct was a threat.
Now, in my mind, any competent gun owner should always, always, ALWAYS, check a gun to be sure it is unloaded so I do not know why law enforcement sees it differently. Other than to give it a "crap happens" status

[Mad American]

Give it up vrede....everyone here and following this thread knows that you are a liar and this time you stuck you foot so far down your throat it should show up in your next BM.

Actually, no one here knows that. I've never seen Vrede lie. Stubbornly pursue a point? Yes. Lie? No. Err? Yes. Lie? No.
I have seen you screw up any number of times and refuse to admit it. I've also seen you claim victory in the midst of epic failure.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said "everyone here with half an ounce of intelligence....." You obviously do not qualify. Carry on then!
Out!

[O Really]

I've not ignored your question O'really...I have actually been giving it some thought before trying to answer and the only answer I can come up with is...I do not know. The only thing I can think of is in relation to a combination of number 2 & 3...an unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a hammer or golf club so there is no "inherent danger" IF the gun is unloaded. With that in mind one would have to PROVE that failing to check the gun first was indeed done with "reckless disregard". Couple that with number 3 and if the person says they did not know the gun was loaded then they could not know their conduct was a threat.
Now, in my mind, any competent gun owner should always, always, ALWAYS, check a gun to be sure it is unloaded so I do not know why law enforcement sees it differently. Other than to give it a "crap happens" status

There are a lot of safety experts, DuPont being one example, who earn a lot of money telling their industrial clients that there is no such thing as "crap happens." If it happens, there is a root cause, and that root cause will almost always be somebody doing something unsafe or not doing something in a safe manner. If we apply that principle to this incident we can find at least two major - big major - unsafe acts on the part of the shooter. First, he obviously did not completely check the fun to make sure it wasn't loaded. Why is that? Did he not know he should check, or checked carelessly, or just "thought" it wasn't loaded? Secondly, why was the gun pointed in the direction of the kid, or why was the kid allowed to move into the line of the gun? I don't know about you, but I can't think of any reason that doesn't come back as "careless" at least. So we have someone injured (killed) by actions this guy took, or didn't take, due to (generously) "carelessness." Did he know or should have known that cleaning a loaded shotgun that was pointed in the direction of the kid could result in injury or death? How is this answer anything but "yes."

I disagree that one has to PROVE, in either upper or lower case, that he acted with "reckless disregard," when the fact that he did should be self-evident, given the universal gun safety rules and the danger involved in not doing checking. In other words, because a loaded shotgun is inherently dangerous (it is, after all, designed to kill something as part of its purpose), then not unloading it and allowing it to be pointed at your kid could not be anything other than "reckless disregard." This would be consistent with other examples considered "child endangerment" such as leaving the child in a locked hot car, or, depending on where you live, leaving children younger than a certain age in your home alone - even if no actual harm occurs.

My point is that firearm accidents really are treated differently from other accidents causing similar harm, and even when there are charges, prosecutors are more likely to allow an "opps" defense. I don't find that to be reasonable.

[Ombudsman]

Cut him a little slack. He is an imbecile after all. He can't help it.

So says the little feist dog that runs out yapping after the big dogs have scared away the coyote....LOL Crawl back under the porch idiot...you have already proven your ignorance. Nice job of riding o'really's coat tails though.

You're hardly a coyote but at least you can admit you were easily chased off even though you still can't seem to grasp the pouncing you received.

Ook, looky...3:45 PM I guess school let out and the feist dog comes back riding on other's coat tails and acting like he actually did something again. Tell me ombuds"man" does your mama know you are online?

Sally, how many different people do you need to explain this to you before you stop making an ass of yourself and admit your error?

[Mad American]

I've not ignored your question O'really...I have actually been giving it some thought before trying to answer and the only answer I can come up with is...I do not know. The only thing I can think of is in relation to a combination of number 2 & 3...an unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a hammer or golf club so there is no "inherent danger" IF the gun is unloaded. With that in mind one would have to PROVE that failing to check the gun first was indeed done with "reckless disregard". Couple that with number 3 and if the person says they did not know the gun was loaded then they could not know their conduct was a threat.
Now, in my mind, any competent gun owner should always, always, ALWAYS, check a gun to be sure it is unloaded so I do not know why law enforcement sees it differently. Other than to give it a "crap happens" status

There are a lot of safety experts, DuPont being one example, who earn a lot of money telling their industrial clients that there is no such thing as "crap happens." If it happens, there is a root cause, and that root cause will almost always be somebody doing something unsafe or not doing something in a safe manner. If we apply that principle to this incident we can find at least two major - big major - unsafe acts on the part of the shooter. First, he obviously did not completely check the fun to make sure it wasn't loaded. Why is that? Did he not know he should check, or checked carelessly, or just "thought" it wasn't loaded? Secondly, why was the gun pointed in the direction of the kid, or why was the kid allowed to move into the line of the gun? I don't know about you, but I can't think of any reason that doesn't come back as "careless" at least. So we have someone injured (killed) by actions this guy took, or didn't take, due to (generously) "carelessness." Did he know or should have known that cleaning a loaded shotgun that was pointed in the direction of the kid could result in injury or death? How is this answer anything but "yes."

I disagree that one has to PROVE, in either upper or lower case, that he acted with "reckless disregard," when the fact that he did should be self-evident, given the universal gun safety rules and the danger involved in not doing checking. In other words, because a loaded shotgun is inherently dangerous (it is, after all, designed to kill something as part of its purpose), then not unloading it and allowing it to be pointed at your kid could not be anything other than "reckless disregard." This would be consistent with other examples considered "child endangerment" such as leaving the child in a locked hot car, or, depending on where you live, leaving children younger than a certain age in your home alone - even if no actual harm occurs.

My point is that firearm accidents really are treated differently from other accidents causing similar harm, and even when there are charges, prosecutors are more likely to allow an "opps" defense. I don't find that to be reasonable.

As I said, I don't know.....try asking a prosecuting attorney.

[Mad American]

Sally, how many different people do you need to explain this to you before you stop making an ass of yourself and admit your error?

Gee feist, I don't know. How many different people are you going to let fight your battles and then jump up barking like you actually accomplished something?

[O Really]

So I did a little - emphasis "little" research, and the findings are interesting. There are some charges and prosecutions resulting from "accidental" shooting of kids, but they're almost all based on the gun owner leaving the gun accessible to a kid and the kid doing the shooting. Much - much - more rare to find one where the gun owner "accidentally" shot a kid. In any case, the shooter generally has to commit some other crime, like having an illegal weapon to start with. On the other hand, it's remarkably easy to get arrested for non-gun related child injury.

Meanwhile, essentially 100% of people proficient with firearms say there are no "accidents" except those involving malfunction of the firearm itself, which are pretty rare. They say all "accidents" are caused by unsafe acts or untrained people. But many of those same people will still argue that attempts to apply the same criminal/negligent standards to firearm accidents that apply to other negligent injury is just the "dam libs" trying to "take away our guns."

[Ombudsman]

Sally, how many different people do you need to explain this to you before you stop making an ass of yourself and admit your error?

Gee feist, I don't know. How many different people are you going to let fight your battles and then jump up barking like you actually accomplished something?

Sally, Sugar, Sweetie, do you still not comprehend that I was the first person to explain this to you? Yes O Really was more patient in walking you through it, step by baby step but he was just drawing you a picture of what I already said. I'm sorry I took a break and ran to Publix while he laid it out for you. I'd have done the same although my responses would have involved a lot more references to what a dip shit you are, but he beat me to it. It's good for you that people are more patient than I am with backwoods bumpkins but are you still so confused that you can't understand my original post?

Stupid is a tough way to live huh?

[Stinger]

Give it up vrede....everyone here and following this thread knows that you are a liar and this time you stuck you foot so far down your throat it should show up in your next BM.

Actually, no one here knows that. I've never seen Vrede lie. Stubbornly pursue a point? Yes. Lie? No. Err? Yes. Lie? No.
I have seen you screw up any number of times and refuse to admit it. I've also seen you claim victory in the midst of epic failure.

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said "everyone here with half an ounce of intelligence....." You obviously do not qualify.

That would be you. Everyone else here has pounds of intelligence. So far, you're the forum lightweight ... who knows so much that isn't so.

Thanks for playing. Please try again.

[Stinger]

Looks like Mad American's channeling Partlisane. He knows it's over, but he's running around, taking a "victory" lap, pounding his chest, and claiming "rhetorical asskickings" ... with about as little success as Partlisane ever had.

[Ombudsman]

Looks like Mad American's channeling Partlisane. He knows it's over, but he's running around, taking a "victory" lap, pounding his chest, and claiming "rhetorical asskickings" ... with about as little success as Partlisane ever had.

Wonder if <removed identifiers> (banni) has a rebel flag stuck up his ass like <removed identifiers> (Banni)?

[Mad American]

Meanwhile, essentially 100% of people proficient with firearms say there are no "accidents" except those involving malfunction of the firearm itself, which are pretty rare.

I agree with that statement and do so having experienced a malfunction (slam fire) that caused an unexpected discharge of the gun. However, that occurred while on a range, with the muzzle in a safe direction so there were no injuries. So with that in mind I do not know why there are no criminal charges..other than my original statement that you can't be arrested for stupid

[Mad American]

Sally, Sugar, Sweetie, do you still not comprehend that I was the first person to explain this to you? Yes O Really was more patient in walking you through it, step by baby step but he was just drawing you a picture of what I already said. I'm sorry I took a break and ran to Publix while he laid it out for you. I'd have done the same although my responses would have involved a lot more references to what a dip shit you are, but he beat me to it. It's good for you that people are more patient than I am with backwoods bumpkins but are you still so confused that you can't understand my original post?

You didn't explain jack shit idiot. You were proven a moron on federal gun law, ran off, waited, and then when vrede and o'really jumped in the conversation you popped out from under the porch yapping like an ankle biting dog. Just like the little ankle biting bitch you are, you got punted like a football. Crawl back under your porch and lick yourself bitch....the adults are talking.

Stupid is a tough way to live huh?
I wouldn't know but you sure seem to be having a tough go of it

[Mad American]

Colorado hunters and wildlife thank the Legislature

Thanks for posting that vrede! Even though your text is intentionally misleading the information in the article is great. I wondered what might happen after Colorado passed their new law and it appears my suspicions may turn out to be correct. It may seem inconsequential to a lot of folks but the economic impact to many of the smaller towns and outfitters will be huge if this takes hold. I know a couple of folks from here in NC that have applied for tags in Wyoming this year after decades of hunting Colorado.