Fucking Guns

145791020

Comments

  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    But, the prevalence of gun also creates a dynamic that can only make policing much harder. When even minor incidents - traffic infringements or vandalism, for example - could easily result in police approaching someone who is armed that must, surely, create additional tension in such instances. And, that tension could, I would say almost certainly does, result in reactions that leaves someone dead or injured.

    Agreed and that's what I was trying to say with this:
    Twilight wrote:
    As long as guns are everywhere, <snip> Police will expect a gun in the hand of a suspect when it's only a cell phone.

    Which got me in a lot of trouble, and it sounds like Simon Toad once tried to say the same with a suggestion that expecting a gun in the glove box might make police more trigger happy.

    We're not, anyone, suggesting it's an okay thing when police shoot unarmed people, just that it might happen less often if the police weren't so darn nervous all the time, and fewer guns might mean less nerves.

    As for dogs instead of guns. My high strung miniature dachshund with the ear bleeding bark, provides all the security system I need. But it seems like those who require a few assault rifles to feel safe get dogs as an addition to their arsenal, not in place of. So it's not unusual to find Pit Bulls and guns in the same household. Both more likely to kill family members than to protect them.

  • Both more likely to kill family members than to protect them.

    Indeed. Kids are especially vulnerable to both guns and dogs. We keep a very tight reign on one of ours around people let alone kids. He's a rescue dog whose life is ruled by fear, which he often displays through aggression.

    I'm listening to a podcast from Fox Radio called "Living the Bream". Its part of my quest to escape my social media bubble in the leadup to the November poll. This one seems pretty reasonable. While the last episode put quite a distorted view of the Mueller Investigation in my opinion, the analysis seemed within the circle of reasonable political discourse. The interviewee was Andy McCarthy, apparently a former federal prosecutor who was basically doing what I do with most things - make wild assertions based on limited experience.

    The first show I heard was an interview with a Journo called Pablo Manriquez, whose dad fled Chile under Pinochet and settled somewhere very very cold in the Midwest. That was brilliant, a most agreeable discussion on immigration and DACA, with a conservative take. Mind you, I ain't got skin in that game so I can afford to be genteel about it.

    I'm sorry I mentioned that stuff about ancient history in the old effing guns thread. Clearly I haven't got over it yet. I freely admit that the USA is my soft underbelly concerning criticism.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    that's what I was trying to say with this:
    Twilight wrote:
    As long as guns are everywhere, <snip> Police will expect a gun in the hand of a suspect when it's only a cell phone.

    Which got me in a lot of trouble, and it sounds like Simon Toad once tried to say the same with a suggestion that expecting a gun in the glove box might make police more trigger happy.
    I would say that the possibility of a gun in the glove box might make police more trigger happy. Whether or not there actually is would be a less significant factor - though if the glove box is opened to access documents requested by the police and the gun is seen that could be a problem.

  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    [quote="Simon Toad;19451
    I'm sorry I mentioned that stuff about ancient history in the old effing guns thread. Clearly I haven't got over it yet. I freely admit that the USA is my soft underbelly concerning criticism. [/quote]

    While I'm making sweeping generalizations about stuff I'll just say I think the Australians are the nicest people in the world. Simon being an example.

    I'm American by way of Scotland myself, which is probably one reason why Alan Cresswell and I have never once, in 17 years on the ship, fully agreed on anything.

    Groundskeeper Willie on the Puritan pukes.


  • Does it spoil that to say we agree that we've never agreed on anything?
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Twilight wrote: »
    Which got me in a lot of trouble

    It wasn't the idea that the possibility of a suspect having a weapon that got you in trouble. Because that is something that only total idiots dispute (our idiocy being partial). Rather, it was the context in which you seemed to be implying that it was somewhat-more-reasonable for police to assuming a black person having a weapon. That flared up a bunch of white guilt in a vocal way.

    Tangent [relevant to the degree of partiality of my idiocy]:
    At a Canada/US border crossing heading into the US, the guard had just finished a cursory inspection of the luggage in the back of the car and said that we were free to drive away. However, he had not closed the rear hatch properly. So I said, "Thanks!" (because Canadian) and casually got out of the car, went round back to firmly latch the hatch, got back in the car and calmly drove away. As I drove, my wife - who used to live in Guatemala during the revolution - stared at me with huge eyes and said, "That was a blatant display of white male privilege." I just blinked with the shock of cluelessness I get to exist in.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    :lol:

    Cheers Twilight, and Alan I reckon disagreement is the spice of friendship.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Twilight wrote: »
    Which got me in a lot of trouble, and it sounds like Simon Toad once tried to say the same with a suggestion that expecting a gun in the glove box might make police more trigger happy.
    What gets you heat in these conversations is that you downplay race as a factor in policing.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Why don't they just get a dog or two? No self-respecting random home-invader is going to choose the home with two crazily barking dogs slavering all over the window, when they can choose the nice quiet house next door.

    Dogs require feeding, taking on regular walks, slobber on you, deposit hair around your house, and crap on the floor. Guns do none of those things.

    If I thought I actually needed to defend my home against an invader or invaders, I'd choose the gun every time. But mostly, if I thought I needed to defend my home against invaders, I'd move.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    Tbf, what you would most likely do is band together with your neighbourhood and form a civil militia with limited powers to deter ne'erdowells and apprehend miscreants. You might even use some of your collective wealth to deputise individuals to be a permanent police force while the rest of you carry on your lawful businesses unimpeded by banditry.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Novel. And then you could train those deputized individuals with specific skills to better handle the needs of such actions, with continuous improvement possible based on results and feedback. I like it.
  • Twilight wrote: »
    that's what I was trying to say with this:
    Twilight wrote:
    As long as guns are everywhere, <snip> Police will expect a gun in the hand of a suspect when it's only a cell phone.

    Which got me in a lot of trouble, and it sounds like Simon Toad once tried to say the same with a suggestion that expecting a gun in the glove box might make police more trigger happy.
    I would say that the possibility of a gun in the glove box might make police more trigger happy. Whether or not there actually is would be a less significant factor - though if the glove box is opened to access documents requested by the police and the gun is seen that could be a problem.

    Schroedinger's Gun?
  • RooK wrote: »
    Novel. And then you could train those deputized individuals with specific skills to better handle the needs of such actions, with continuous improvement possible based on results and feedback. I like it.

    And we could call it, the Police Department.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Tangent [relevant to the degree of partiality of my idiocy]:
    At a Canada/US border crossing heading into the US, the guard had just finished a cursory inspection of the luggage in the back of the car and said that we were free to drive away. However, he had not closed the rear hatch properly. So I said, "Thanks!" (because Canadian) and casually got out of the car, went round back to firmly latch the hatch, got back in the car and calmly drove away. As I drove, my wife - who used to live in Guatemala during the revolution - stared at me with huge eyes and said, "That was a blatant display of white male privilege." I just blinked with the shock of cluelessness I get to exist in.

    Out of curiosity - what do you think you should have done instead, to avoid your "blatant display of white male privilege"?
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Dave W wrote: »
    Out of curiosity - what do you think you should have done instead, to avoid your "blatant display of white male privilege"?

    Anything other than jump unannounced out of the car at the checkpoint with armed guards.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Dave W wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Tangent [relevant to the degree of partiality of my idiocy]:
    At a Canada/US border crossing heading into the US, the guard had just finished a cursory inspection of the luggage in the back of the car and said that we were free to drive away. However, he had not closed the rear hatch properly. So I said, "Thanks!" (because Canadian) and casually got out of the car, went round back to firmly latch the hatch, got back in the car and calmly drove away. As I drove, my wife - who used to live in Guatemala during the revolution - stared at me with huge eyes and said, "That was a blatant display of white male privilege." I just blinked with the shock of cluelessness I get to exist in.

    Out of curiosity - what do you think you should have done instead, to avoid your "blatant display of white male privilege"?
    A black person would have driven slowly away and waited until they were a good distance down the road before getting out and closing the boot.
    Well, actually, a black person would already be out of the car, putting their kit back in the boot after the police pulled it out to search, but...

    ETA: And a middle-eastern person would still be in detention being questioned. Privilege is a moveable target.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Out of curiosity - what do you think you should have done instead, to avoid your "blatant display of white male privilege"?

    Anything other than jump unannounced out of the car at the checkpoint with armed guards.

    So do you regret doing what you did - that is, do (or did) you feel ashamed of having blatantly displayed your white male privilege?

    I'm asking because I find your wife's formulation odd. I can understand her being struck by your seeming insouciance in this kind of situation, and wanting to point out to you how she would have felt a need to be far more cautious. But it seems weird that this was expressed as a criticism of your behavior, not that of the border guard (or of border guards in general.)
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Dave W wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Out of curiosity - what do you think you should have done instead, to avoid your "blatant display of white male privilege"?

    Anything other than jump unannounced out of the car at the checkpoint with armed guards.

    So do you regret doing what you did - that is, do (or did) you feel ashamed of having blatantly displayed your white male privilege.

    Shame at being privileged (or showing it) - no.
    Definitely negative feelings about being oblivious, though.

    My wife is a brilliant and complex being, who was able to deftly layer her negative opinion about systemic bias with her mockery of my apparent incomprehension of the situation. My representation of her comment is but a crude shadow of how she likely phrased it, being the meagre portion I am capable of retaining.
  • rofl. I know a woman like that, and she's from an island too - Tasmania.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    And in other related news, an extract from the WaPo:
    A Parkland chemistry teacher who said he was open to the idea of arming himself after the mass shooting at the high school has been arrested after he left a loaded gun in a public bathroom, police said.

    Let's see: guns don't kill people, people kill people? People forget guns in public places, so... what now? - I say, ban as many of the blasted things as you can! Yes: ban guns, not people.
  • Dunno, banning people would be pretty effective as well. Need to get that space elevator working, doesn't need to go anywhere but up.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Wesley J wrote: »
    And in other related news, an extract from the WaPo:
    A Parkland chemistry teacher who said he was open to the idea of arming himself after the mass shooting at the high school has been arrested after he left a loaded gun in a public bathroom, police said.

    It might be a useful rule of thumb that the teachers most eager to bring guns to school are the ones that shouldn't be trusted to have guns in any public spaces.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    And in other related news, an extract from the WaPo:
    A Parkland chemistry teacher who said he was open to the idea of arming himself after the mass shooting at the high school has been arrested after he left a loaded gun in a public bathroom, police said.

    It might be a useful rule of thumb that the teachers most eager to bring guns to school are the ones that shouldn't be trusted to have guns in any public spaces.

    May I suggest that "teachers" could functionally be replaced by "anyone", and "school" by "anywhere"?
  • .
    RooK wrote: »
    May I suggest that "teachers" could functionally be replaced by "anyone", and "school" by "anywhere"?
    Spot on.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Wesley J wrote: »
    And in other related news, an extract from the WaPo:
    A Parkland chemistry teacher who said he was open to the idea of arming himself after the mass shooting at the high school has been arrested after he left a loaded gun in a public bathroom, police said.

    It might be a useful rule of thumb that the teachers most eager to bring guns to school are the ones that shouldn't be trusted to have guns in any public spaces.

    May I suggest that "teachers" could functionally be replaced by "anyone", and "school" by "anywhere"?

    I'm sorry there isn't time.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    For what, Mr Toad?
  • :smiley: There isn't time for suggesting that "teachers"...

    A very old Python joke.
  • Is that from the election sketch? I won't upset the Hosts by quoting large parts of it.
  • I think so, but I can't remember. I think Palin did the 'can I just say' and Cleese the 'I'm sorry there isn't time.' The rest is childhood blur.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I think Palin did ....
    Help! I'm sick, and in serious need of attention.

    My first thought reading that was "Sarah"!!!!

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    :lol:

    And thankyou Rook, I am very pleased to be wrong :)
  • James Shaw Jr. a good guy without a gun.
    Respect
  • yes indeed. Do you think they will make a film about him?
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    He is very, very lucky. Do the math: Black man + gun = police target
  • Good for him. Also good that he threw the gun away. If the cops had arrived to find dead people, and a black man with a gun...

    There've been other incidents in the news. I *think* these may all be from California.

    --A 3-year-old girl found her dad's gun in the back of the car, and accidentally shot her pregnant mom. Don't know if that was fatal.

    --A mom accidentally shot her kid. Don't know if that was fatal.

    --A (young?) man was going to do a shooting on the day of the anti-gun march last week, but IIRC he was caught before he did anything.

    --A black man was finishing his meal at a restaurant, with his little girl in his lap. A man entered and stabbed the man several times, killing him. Don't know if there was a racial factor.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    James Shaw is awesome. Not only did he grab the gun and stop the killings, he's so modest he says he was not being a hero, but just saving himself, and that he has no combat training other than, "wrestling my little girl into bed."

    The Waffle house story is everything for those of us who are in favor of a sweeping gun ban. The shooter is obviously mentally ill, has acted out before, had his guns taken away and given to his father for "safe keeping."

    All pointing to: how good guys can do good things without guns, how much we need serious mental health care, how impossible it is to keep guns out of the hands of violent people when they are everywhere.
    A black man was finishing his meal at a restaurant, with his little girl in his lap. A man entered and stabbed the man several times, killing him. Don't know if there was a racial factor.
    I think the victim was Hispanic.
    3-year-old girl found her dad's gun in the back of the car, and accidentally shot her pregnant mom. Don't know if that was fatal.
    The mother is surviving but has nerve damage. The father has been charged with recklessness.

  • Why was the Waffle House shooting suspect's father allowed to hold onto his son's firearms when his son had his gun license revoked? It seems that the son got his hands back on the weapons at some point, possibly with his father's permission (but while still being legally banned from possessing them).

    I know that a person's vehicle is not confiscated when they have their driver's license revoked but guns should be different for obvious reasons. If a person is perceived to be a danger to oneself or others enough to have their gun license revoked, then it seems absurd to give that weapon to a relative for safekeeping. What if the person lives under the same roof as the relative guarding the weapons? And even if they live apart, isn't the relative holding onto the weapons put at risk if the person comes demanding their weapon back? The weapons should be confiscated and held until the person is deemed legally fit to possess a firearm again. For situations like this, I worry that the vagueness of the Second Amendment is an obstacle to common sense. Although maybe judges would rule that such confiscation is constitutional. I honestly don't know.
  • A story I saw online showed a pic of an African-American man, with no name attached. So I figured it was probably the victim. I just now found a CNN article with pics and names of both men. The alleged attacker is African American. The victim's name is Anthony Mele. Not sure of the ancestry of the name, and the pic isn't very clear.

    I only raised the issue of race because there's so much race-related violence..
  • Why was the Waffle House shooting suspect's father allowed to hold onto his son's firearms when his son had his gun license revoked?

    ...

    The weapons should be confiscated and held until the person is deemed legally fit to possess a firearm again.
    I expect that it's all part of property laws, and that without a conviction there are no powers to confiscate someone's property. When the gun license is revoked then he can no longer own, use or carry his guns, but they are still his property and he is free to sell or give them to whoever he wants - even under an agreement that they'll be given back should he regain his license.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    A story I saw online showed a pic of an African-American man, with no name attached. So I figured it was probably the victim. I just now found a CNN article with pics and names of both men. The alleged attacker is African American. The victim's name is Anthony Mele. Not sure of the ancestry of the name, and the pic isn't very clear.

    I only raised the issue of race because there's so much race-related violence..

    I know, I didn't mean to be pedantic, the articles confused me at first too and I only guessed that the victim was Hispanic because the other Meles I have known was. It still could be race motivated, but the reports I read indicated that the stabber was homeless, so probably mentally ill.



    On NPR yesterday they were discussing the reason behind the father in the Waffle House case getting custody of the guns. It's like Alan Cresswell says, vague laws about property, so police officers hesitate to confiscate. Short answer: Constitution. We could just scrap most of the discussion on this thread and say, "Constitution." If I were more of a fundamentalist I would say God is punishing us for putting it ahead of the Ten Commandments.
  • When the Waffle House killer had his guns removed, he was living in Illinois. Illinois requires a state FOID card in order to keep a gun in the state; when the state revoked his FOID card, he could no longer possess guns in Illinois. But his Dad had a FOID card, and could take possession of the guns.

    Killer then moved to Tennessee, which does not require gun owners to register. As such, there was no legal ban on the killer getting his guns back.

    I'd guess killer's Dad has civil liability in these deaths, but I'd also guess that he's not a wealthy man, and doesn't have a great deal to lose.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    On NPR yesterday they were discussing the reason behind the father in the Waffle House case getting custody of the guns. It's like Alan Cresswell says, vague laws about property, so police officers hesitate to confiscate. Short answer: Constitution. We could just scrap most of the discussion on this thread and say, "Constitution." If I were more of a fundamentalist I would say God is punishing us for putting it ahead of the Ten Commandments.

    The Fifth Amendment isn't exactly a "vague law" though it is part of the U.S. Constitution. Although better known for it's provision against self-incrimination it also contains what's known as the "Takings Clause", which basically says that the government can't just take your stuff because it wants to. Either it has to offer "just compensation" by paying you for your property (typical with eminent domain) or can rule you forfeit your right to property in a judicial proceding (the Due Process clause of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).
  • ...though cops, etc. wrongly confiscate assets all the time, without even charging the owner with a crime. See this Washington Post article. If you do a Web search on "police confiscation property", you'll find lots more.
  • I'd like to point out that we don't have AR-15s in Australia. (some naughty words).
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I'd like to point out that we don't have AR-15s in Australia. (some naughty words).

    Brilliant.
  • *hits like button*
Sign In or Register to comment.