Gun Legislation

[Ombudsman]

... I'm sure there are a LOT of folks with the same IP/server depending on network set ups.

LOL - The same address? Only if they are using your same computer: 72.250.240.54 Same one as Mad American. Why the facade?

[Roland Deschain]

... I'm sure there are a LOT of folks with the same IP/server depending on network set ups.

LOL - The same address? Only if they are using your same computer: 72.250.240.54 Same one as Mad American. Why the facade?

Not that it is any of your business but there are 18 people with direct access to this terminal and over 300 more that could use it at any time. You think yourselves clever but it just shows that you all have no class or internet etiquette.

[rstrong]

72.250.240.54 is associated with ashevillenc.gov.
IP address ISP is "Education and Research Consortium of the Western Carolinas."
Organization is "City of Asheville."

[O Really]

Parents charged with child endangerment for letting their 10-year old ride with her dog in the dog carrier on the back of their truck.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/pa-pa ... -cage-ride

Further down the page, a couple of "faith healer" sorts get charged with murder for not getting proper medical attention for their kid.

But the same or worse level of negligence is usually ignored when it involves leaving guns around that kids injure themselves or others with. "Oh, it was just a tragic 'accident'." Maybe there should be a "National Kids in Dog Boxes Association" or a "National Faith Healers Association" buying up members of Congress and Legislatures all over to protect these otherwise "law abiding citizens" from "harassment" from the "tyrannical gummint." Looks like "Obama" is more likely to come take away dog boxes than he is guns.

[Roland Deschain]

You have spent a lot of time beating that horse O Really. What is your solution?

[O Really]

You have spent a lot of time beating that horse O Really. What is your solution?

Enforce the same level of negligence for guns as for anything else. No new laws required.

[Roland Deschain]

A nice short answer. How would you define and then prove negligence enough to make it stick in court?

[O Really]

"Negligence" in this sense, typically refers to an action or lack of action on the part of a person that caused or lead to harm to another person or property. So if you've got a dead kid, and the cops investigation shows the kid "accidentally" shot himself with a gun that you left loaded and accessible to him, if I were making the rules, I'd consider that criminal negligence. If the kid was able to get a loaded gun, somebody was negligent.

If you're cleaning your piece and it "goes off" and shoots your kid or wife, you're negligent. It wasn't an "accident." You picked up the firearm and didn't check to see if it was loaded. You were cleaning it with it pointing in the direction of another person.

It's not rocket surgery or cutting edge law. It's just looking at events without the artificial color and distortion of NRA glasses.

[Roland Deschain]

"Negligence" in this sense, typically refers to an action or lack of action on the part of a person that caused or lead to harm to another person or property. So if you've got a dead kid, and the cops investigation shows the kid "accidentally" shot himself with a gun that you left loaded and accessible to him, if I were making the rules, I'd consider that criminal negligence. If the kid was able to get a loaded gun, somebody was negligent.

If you're cleaning your piece and it "goes off" and shoots your kid or wife, you're negligent. It wasn't an "accident." You picked up the firearm and didn't check to see if it was loaded. You were cleaning it with it pointing in the direction of another person.

It's not rocket surgery or cutting edge law. It's just looking at events without the artificial color and distortion of NRA glasses.

I'm not sure that the NRA has much to do with criminal law regarding negligence. I'd say your anger is misplaced and should be directed at local law enforcement and prosecutors.

[Ombudsman]

"Negligence" in this sense, typically refers to an action or lack of action on the part of a person that caused or lead to harm to another person or property. So if you've got a dead kid, and the cops investigation shows the kid "accidentally" shot himself with a gun that you left loaded and accessible to him, if I were making the rules, I'd consider that criminal negligence. If the kid was able to get a loaded gun, somebody was negligent.

If you're cleaning your piece and it "goes off" and shoots your kid or wife, you're negligent. It wasn't an "accident." You picked up the firearm and didn't check to see if it was loaded. You were cleaning it with it pointing in the direction of another person.

It's not rocket surgery or cutting edge law. It's just looking at events without the artificial color and distortion of NRA glasses.

I'm not sure that the NRA has much to do with criminal law regarding negligence. I'd say your anger is misplaced and should be directed at local law enforcement and prosecutors.

I think you missed what he said. He's asking you to put aside the NRA propaganda and realize there are sensible solutions to gun crimes. Unfortunately, the NRA has guys like you so scared of your own shadows that any measure suggested results in a lot of hysteria about the over reaching government.

[Roland Deschain]

I think you missed what he said. He's asking you to put aside the NRA propaganda and realize there are sensible solutions to gun crimes. Unfortunately, the NRA has guys like you so scared of your own shadows that any measure suggested results in a lot of hysteria about the over reaching government.

I think you missed what I said. While the NRA is great at what they do, I do not believe they are involved with criminal negligence laws at the local level. In addition are we talking about gun "crimes" or hypothetical negligence cases? If we are talking about true gun "crimes" then there are solutions, starting with properly enforcing and/or applying existing laws. Not creating additional laws that will be equally unenforced and poorly applied. Apparently, the NRA has guys like you sacred of them that you are willing to believe anything the liberal left spews against them.

[O Really]

The NRA is quite proud of its effort to influence lawmakers, law enforcement, and laws. They are proud of how they have been able to frame the discussion of as well as the application of firearms law. For example,
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/20/nra-relat ... ains-free/

Or if you'd prefer Fox's version, here it is..
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... -coverage/

And sure, if I were making the rules, I'd make sure every instance of catching somebody with an illegal firearm would result in big punishment. I'm sure some lackadaisical enforcement is simply a result of personal opinion on the part of law enforcement or prosecution. But it's laughable coming particularly from a likely NRA member that the association isn't the biggest fish in the gun law pond. Just ask them.

[Roland Deschain]

The NRA is quite proud of its effort to influence lawmakers, law enforcement, and laws. They are proud of how they have been able to frame the discussion of as well as the application of firearms law. For example,
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/20/nra-relat ... ains-free/

Or if you'd prefer Fox's version, here it is..
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... -coverage/

And sure, if I were making the rules, I'd make sure every instance of catching somebody with an illegal firearm would result in big punishment. I'm sure some lackadaisical enforcement is simply a result of personal opinion on the part of law enforcement or prosecution. But it's laughable coming particularly from a likely NRA member that the association isn't the biggest fish in the gun law pond. Just ask them.

They may be the biggest fish in the gun law pond but we are discussing criminal negligence law. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. It does not work that way sai.

[O Really]

They may be the biggest fish in the gun law pond but we are discussing criminal negligence law. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. It does not work that way sai.

Your response demonstrates the point. Practically anything that could cause harm could and likely has at one time or another been a part of some negligence lawsuit, which may or may not reach the level of criminal negligence. But guns get cut slack much of the time. Look at today's example: I'm not saying it's a good idea to carry your kid and her dog around in the dog box in your truck, but in this instance nobody was injured. And there's probably a traffic law against kids riding in pickup beds. But the charge is child endangerment. I'm simply saying, compare that event and that charge to the recent events and charges where somebody left a gun lying around and see if you don't find a major disconnect.

You don't need to mention guns specifically. You don't have to change current law. You have to change current thinking. So, other than the effect of the NRA's 40-year long constant propaganda, why would anybody think it's a worse case of child endangerment to let the kid ride in the dog box than to leave a loaded pistol on the bed?

[O Really]

Roland, and others remarkably like him, clearly demonstrate that they believe that because the Second Amendment provides a limited right to gun ownership, that automatically anything that happens with a gun should be treated differently from any other inanimate object. And there's even artificial distinctions among gun events. How many hunting "accidents" get the full "opps" defense because the shooter "thought he was a turkey." Well, he may have been a turkey, but a fundamental rule of shooting is to know what you're pointing at, including what's behind your target and around it. By definition, a shooter who shoots his friend because he mistook him for a turkey could not have taken even that most fundamental caution. How is that not gross or criminal negligence? The concept of negligence is based on a "known or should have known" principle wherein a person does something they know to be dangerous, or doesn't do something to prevent a dangerous situation. There is no reason why anyone would not know a firearm can be dangerous. There is no excuse for anyone owning a firearm and not learning at least the fundamentals of firearm safety. There is no excuse for not following those fundamentals. To do otherwise should result in criminal charges if anyone is injured.

[rstrong]

To do otherwise should result in criminal charges if anyone is injured.

You might want to clarify that you're talking about the shooter being charged, not the person who gets injured.

(Dick Cheney's hunting partner publicly apologized to him for getting shot in the face. Really.)

[O Really]

To do otherwise should result in criminal charges if anyone is injured.

You might want to clarify that you're talking about the shooter being charged, not the person who gets injured.

(Dick Cheney's hunting partner publicly apologized to him for getting shot in the face. Really.)

True that!
And I enjoy bashing Cheney as much as anyone, but as I recall the story (emphasize the term "story") the guy did pretty much walk into Cheney's line of fire. Assuming that to be true - big assumption - in my fantasy world I would not charge Cheney for the shooting.

[Roland Deschain]

They may be the biggest fish in the gun law pond but we are discussing criminal negligence law. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. It does not work that way sai.

Your response demonstrates the point. Practically anything that could cause harm could and likely has at one time or another been a part of some negligence lawsuit, which may or may not reach the level of criminal negligence. But guns get cut slack much of the time. Look at today's example: I'm not saying it's a good idea to carry your kid and her dog around in the dog box in your truck, but in this instance nobody was injured. And there's probably a traffic law against kids riding in pickup beds. But the charge is child endangerment. I'm simply saying, compare that event and that charge to the recent events and charges where somebody left a gun lying around and see if you don't find a major disconnect.

You don't need to mention guns specifically. You don't have to change current law. You have to change current thinking. So, other than the effect of the NRA's 40-year long constant propaganda, why would anybody think it's a worse case of child endangerment to let the kid ride in the dog box than to leave a loaded pistol on the bed?

I'd check seat belt laws for starters and you are still talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Roland Deschain]

I don't think you'll get a sensible answer. <ahem> "Roland Deschain" is so far gone with his toys and blind adherence to the ever-changing NRA view that he is opposed to making it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to get guns from other sellers before they use them.

Stating an understanding of the 2nd amendment is a far cry from claiming to be an expert.

"fully understand", don't be such a weasel when busted.

Funny thing is, I made that statement while pointing out your apparent lack of knowledge of existing law and yet you claim I am "ignorant".

Really? I've clearly and accurately posted that the existing laws only apply to purchases from licensed dealers and to penalizing lawbreakers after the often tragic fact, while you ignorantly imagine that the "2nd Amendement" precludes background checks even though the NRA supported them not long ago and the existing ones have never been successfully challenged. You escape to a rich fantasy world when you screw-up.

Now, quit running away, why are you opposed to making it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to get guns from other sellers before they use them?

Vrede you are a rather pitiful individual. You apparently post constantly (great post count) yet you offer very little substance to a conversation. You reply with vague insults and continually asking already answered questions. One would think that you either have an insatiable desire to receive responses to your posts and continue an argument or that you are simply the internet definition of a troll. Either way, you are beneath me and no longer warrant my time.

[O Really]

I'd check seat belt laws for starters and you are still talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Seat belt laws?? Seriously? WTH does that have to do with anything? You want to discuss guns and gun laws or something else? If seat belt laws are controversial, start a thread and I'll decide whether it's interesting enough to participate.

How is it contradictory to say if your lack of compliance with standard and well-known safety precautions results in injury you should be held accountable no matter what the item causing the injury is?