Stupid firearm accident thread

[Phil1111 905]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

..Phil - such ignorance. I'm not an NRA fan but what they would actually say, and have been saying for years is: ...

- Don't blame the object, blame the user.

- Two simple rules: Treat every gun as if it's loaded. Don't point a gun at anything that you don't intend to shoot.

At one time I was a NRA member. I know what they say. A political revolt called the  “Cincinnati Revolt”. occurred and political self serving self dealing insiders seized control. Originally the NRA was founded on "gun safety and marksmanship".

After this safety went out the window. Pushing "gun rights" and fighting every effort to institute any limits or controls on the purchase of any firearm or accessory. Became its life and its political objective. Fundraising, PAC activities and corruption became the rule. The "Taj Mahal " of the NRA headquarters was only the start. Their in house law firm billing the NRA at the rate of $100k a day for an entire year. . Self dealing of insiders including Oliver North and Wayne La Pierre.

"no different than anything else" eh. Yet they kill and maim over 150,000 Americans every year and kill 95 every day.  Yet the NRA internal documents "detail more than half a million dollars in spending beneficial to LaPierre, including nearly $275,000 in “wardrobe” purchases at a Beverly Hills boutique, and more than $250,000 in luxury"travel.

The NRA deals in the message of fear and obstruction. Not gun safety and marksmanship. Not to protect the safe use of guns for sport and hunting.

One of my x-mas presents to myself this year was a armored dueling tree in 3/8" AR-500 like this. A farmer I know with a plasma table is cutting the metal and a friend is welding it up. I don't shoot game any more but I like to keep my Dillon 650 from rusting up. No I'm not ignorant of guns or the issues around them.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Phil1111

[billvon 2,379]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

- It's no different than anything else that is dangerous, be it a car, bleach, or a kitchen knife, don't mess with it without proper knowledge.

But that's the point.  A spoon IS different from bleach.  Bleach IS different than a kitchen knife.  A kitchen knife IS different than nuclear waste.  It's a cute semantic argument to say "none of those things is inherently dangerous if you know what you are doing" - but the fact is that you can't own high level nuclear waste as long as you "know what you're doing."  The risks to other people are too high.

If guns only killed their owners I'd be 100% on board with the whole "blame the user not the object."  But the fact is that people make mistakes.  If that mistake means you spill bleach on your carpet and have to live with a white spot, then no worries.  If that mistake means you kill yourself, that's sad - but something you are 100% in charge of.  If that mistake means you kill your neighbor's child - then no, it doesn't make sense to just say "it was his fault not the gun's, no changes required."

Gun safety instructors have accidentally shot the students they were teaching gun safety to.  That pretty much invalidates the argument that "if you know what you are doing, your gun is safe."

[billeisele 122]

22 hours ago, billvon said:

If guns only killed their owners I'd be 100% on board with the whole "blame the user not the object."  But the fact is that people make mistakes.  If that mistake means you spill bleach on your carpet and have to live with a white spot, then no worries.  If that mistake means you kill yourself, that's sad - but something you are 100% in charge of.  If that mistake means you kill your neighbor's child - then no, it doesn't make sense to just say "it was his fault not the gun's, no changes required."

I've suggested changes. What changes do you suggest that are feasible and wouldn't unreasonably infringe on the rights of legal gun owners?

[gowlerk 1,901]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

unreasonably infringe

Key phrase there. And no two people will agree on its meaning.

[billvon 2,379]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

I've suggested changes. What changes do you suggest that are feasible and wouldn't unreasonably infringe on the rights of legal gun owners?

1) Better mental health care
2) Background checks for everyone who obtains a gun.  Period.
3) Local law enforcement power to confiscate guns when there is a reasonable suspicion (as determined by a court) of mental illness.

For starters.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

Interesting. 

Does the background check apply to the owner, or to the gun?
By that, I mean is there some sort of check that then permits the person to buy guns for a set period of time? There are states that have this sort of thing.
Or is it a fresh background check for each purchase? That's how it works now for purchase from a FFL dealer in most places.

The idea that a court could revoke the right to guns separately is a bit unsettling.
If somoene is so mentally ill that they shouldn't posess a gun, then they probably shouldn't be free to roam around in public. 
There are already committment procedures in place. Many places have a '72 hour hold' where a person can be locked up on the word of a cop and a doctor. 

Would you have a set of standards in place to take away guns? Or would it be at the judge's discretion. Yes, I'm going down the 'some judges would take guns away from anyone who makes a threatening statement, while others wouldn't take them away until they killed someone' path. 

And your 'for starters' comment is troubling. While I agree that there could (and maybe should) be other stuff put in place, one of the biggest reasons the 'gun lobby' opposes any restrictions is because they always seem to be 'for starters'. Look at what was proposed for "Brady 2". If there hadn't been a big pushback in the 96 mid-terms, after the AWB was passed, there would be a LOT more restrictions in place. 

[billvon 2,379]

32 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The idea that a court could revoke the right to guns separately is a bit unsettling.

I do not propose that.  

What I do propose is that police have the power to remove weapons when a court so orders and keep them for some time, similar to how police can arrest a person and hold them for some time (48 or 72 hours, depending on state) without charging them.  Afterwards, unless there was a further ruling from the court (where the person could be present) they would be returned.

Note that such a court order can be had right now - the only difference is that this would be altered so it could be done quickly in an emergency (i.e. a well armed boyfriend makes a death threat against his girlfriend.)  California already has a law like this that covers some of the same cases, like a family requesting that the courts take away weapons from a relative who has become deranged.  I would expand that, make it easier to implement emergently and make it federal.

Quote

Would you have a set of standards in place to take away guns? Or would it be at the judge's discretion. 

Both.  There would be a set of standards (i.e. "clear and demonstrable danger" or some such) and the interpretation of that would be up to the judge.
 

Quote

Does the background check apply to the owner, or to the gun?

Owner.  Any time a person comes into possession of a gun (outside of a range where they are loaned a gun and it stays on premises) they need a background check.  That includes gifting, sale, inheritance etc.

 

Quote

one of the biggest reasons the 'gun lobby' opposes any restrictions is because they always seem to be 'for starters'. 

I agree that they will use that.  But at this point I think public safety is more important than placating an increasingly politicized and out-of-touch lobby.  Nothing anyone can do will placate them.

[wolfriverjoe 1,339]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

I do not propose that.  

What I do propose is that police have the power to remove weapons when a court so orders and keep them for some time, similar to how police can arrest a person and hold them for some time (48 or 72 hours, depending on state) without charging them.  Note that such a court order can be had right now - the only difference is that this would be altered so it could be done quickly in an emergency (i.e. a well armed boyfriend makes a death threat against his girlfriend.)  California already has a law like this that covers some of the same cases, like a family requesting that the courts take away weapons from a relative who has become deranged.  I would expand that, make it easier to implement emergently and make it federal.

Yes you did. You may not have meant it that way, you may not have realized it.

Taking away guns, and presumably not allowing them to get more, takes away their rights.

Just like locking someone up takes away their rights. 

Generally when "law enforcement" 'confiscates' guns, they don't give them back. There's a ton of stories about that. 

To order someone to surrender their guns to a family member or friend (or lawyer or whoever) for a specific amount of time is a bit different from what you posted.

 

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Owner.  Any time a person comes into possession of a gun (outside of a range where they are loaned a gun and it stays on premises) they need a background check.  That includes gifting, sale, inheritance etc.

That sounds more like when I meant when I wrote 'the gun'.

The background check would be 'any time a person comes into posession of a gun'. 
So, for someone who already has several guns, who has passed a background check recently, would they be required to pass another one?

IIRC, Iowa has a 'purchaser's card', that shows a person has passed a background check and allows them to buy multiple guns. It alleviates the multiple checks, and the fees that come with. 
I'm in favor of that idea. A seller, or 'giver', or 'loaner' or whatever simple checks the card (presumably they can verify the card with a phone call, but I really don't know the details) and then can be reasonably sure they aren't selling, giving or loaning a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. 

And any time? What about if a hunter loans a gun to a friend to go hunting with (accompanied by the owner)?
What about a family member borrowing a gun to take to the range (not accompanied by the owner)?

I'm not opposed to the idea of background checks in principle, but some of the details are a bit difficult to work out. 
I've heard (read) a variety of issues that the mandatory background checks in California have raised. From dealers charging an exorbitant 'transfer fee' to do an 'intra-family' gift, to insisting on acting as the sale agent (purchasing the gun from the selller and selling it to the buyer - for a profit). 

And, of course, the simple fact that virtually ALL of the mass shootings that have happened have been done with guns that were purchased with a background check (the Sandy Hook guns were stolen by the shooter from his mother, whom he killed, but she went through the checks). 
Interestingly, the "Kenosha Kid", Kyle Rittenhouse, got his rifle via a straw purchase. 

[billvon 2,379]

57 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Yes you did. You may not have meant it that way, you may not have realized it.
Taking away guns, and presumably not allowing them to get more, takes away their rights.
Just like locking someone up takes away their rights. 

Yep.  And per the US Constitution we have a right to a trial before being imprisoned.  Still, police can lock people up on mere suspicion of a crime, and the Supreme Court has ruled several times that that does not "take away" those Constitutional rights.   Similarly, the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on weapon ownership does not violate the Second Amendment.

 

Quote

 Iowa has a 'purchaser's card', that shows a person has passed a background check and allows them to buy multiple guns.

If that was subject to regular renewals (six months?  something like that) then that would work well.

Quote

And any time? What about if a hunter loans a gun to a friend to go hunting with (accompanied by the owner)?
What about a family member borrowing a gun to take to the range (not accompanied by the owner)?

If the gun moves to someone else's possession - yes.  Whether it's a loan, a sale, a trade at a flea market - anything.  If you are letting your friend use it while you are next to him hunting, but it's not out of your sight?  Then you could reasonably say it was in your possession and under your control.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And per the US Constitution we have a right to a trial before being imprisoned. 

Nope.

[billvon 2,379]

16 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Nope.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[JoeWeber 2,294]

53 minutes ago, billvon said:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

And never shall such infringements be recorded with body cams. I concede your point of "per the US Constitution". Sadly that's not what is reality.

[billvon 2,379]

22 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

And never shall such infringements be recorded with body cams. I concede your point of "per the US Constitution". Sadly that's not what is reality.

I agree - which was sorta my point.  You can be arrested for . . .  almost any reason at all, and it's even legal as long as they release you after 48 hours.

[kallend 1,619]

9 hours ago, billeisele said:

I've suggested changes. What changes do you suggest that are feasible and wouldn't unreasonably infringe on the rights of legal gun owners?

Automatic prison term for straw purchases. No exceptions.

Automatic prison term for transferring a weapon to a disqualified person. No exceptions.

Mandatory reporting if gun is stolen or lost.

Background check on all purchases, even private ones.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

22 minutes ago, kallend said:

Automatic prison term for straw purchases. No exceptions.

Automatic prison term for transferring a weapon to a disqualified person. No exceptions.

Mandatory reporting if gun is stolen or lost.

Background check on all purchases, even private ones.

Anyone caught catching butterflies without a net shall be dragged backwards by galloping horses to a public place for additional ill treatment. Habeas Corpus shall be suspended for all persons in the vicinity of suspected gun crimes. A special night police shall be formed to round up all persons without backgrounds, known mandatories and counterfeit exceptions. And just like magic we can simply forget that DC.v Heller is the law in America.

[rifleman 61]

12 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Interesting. 

Does the background check apply to the owner, or to the gun?
By that, I mean is there some sort of check that then permits the person to buy guns for a set period of time? There are states that have this sort of thing.
Or is it a fresh background check for each purchase? That's how it works now for purchase from a FFL dealer in most places.

The idea that a court could revoke the right to guns separately is a bit unsettling.
If somoene is so mentally ill that they shouldn't posess a gun, then they probably shouldn't be free to roam around in public. 
There are already committment procedures in place. Many places have a '72 hour hold' where a person can be locked up on the word of a cop and a doctor. 

Would you have a set of standards in place to take away guns? Or would it be at the judge's discretion. Yes, I'm going down the 'some judges would take guns away from anyone who makes a threatening statement, while others wouldn't take them away until they killed someone' path. 

And your 'for starters' comment is troubling. While I agree that there could (and maybe should) be other stuff put in place, one of the biggest reasons the 'gun lobby' opposes any restrictions is because they always seem to be 'for starters'. Look at what was proposed for "Brady 2". If there hadn't been a big pushback in the 96 mid-terms, after the AWB was passed, there would be a LOT more restrictions in place. 

Here in the UK, we have a "buyers card" type system. A local police firearms officer processes the application which includes character statements from two responsible people plus a medical statement from your doctor. It lists the firearms that you own and you must demonstrate that you have good reason to hold the firearms that you want. I can, if I wish, own a rifle chambered for .50 BMG but as I live 200 miles from the nearest range that's licenced for that calibre and I'm not involved in long range shooting there's no need for me to have one. I have one rifle chambered for .308, a 12ga shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine and suppressor but which has to be, by law, chambered for .22LR. It has an AR style body kit but it's essentially a Ruger 10/22. The doctor who completed my medical report for my application has a mandatory reporting requirement with regards to my mental health status. I've had two bouts of clinical depression in my life and in both circumstances, the firearms officer was notified by my doctor. He came and visited me to discuss my options and in both cases I voluntarily moved my guns to storage at the local gun club where I could still access them for use. When the doctor gave me the all clear, I was able to recover my guns from the club gun safes.

[tkhayes 124]

On 12/27/2020 at 2:06 PM, billvon said:

But that's the point.  A spoon IS different from bleach.  Bleach IS different than a kitchen knife.  A kitchen knife IS different than nuclear waste.  It's a cute semantic argument to say "none of those things is inherently dangerous if you know what you are doing" - but the fact is that you can't own high level nuclear waste as long as you "know what you're doing."  The risks to other people are too high.

If guns only killed their owners I'd be 100% on board with the whole "blame the user not the object."  But the fact is that people make mistakes.  If that mistake means you spill bleach on your carpet and have to live with a white spot, then no worries.  If that mistake means you kill yourself, that's sad - but something you are 100% in charge of.  If that mistake means you kill your neighbor's child - then no, it doesn't make sense to just say "it was his fault not the gun's, no changes required."

Gun safety instructors have accidentally shot the students they were teaching gun safety to.  That pretty much invalidates the argument that "if you know what you are doing, your gun is safe."

blaming the object is already a false argument.  Moch of the proposed gun regulations DO IN FACT address the user.  background checks, training, storage,

[tkhayes 124]

On 12/27/2020 at 2:06 PM, billvon said:

But that's the point.  A spoon IS different from bleach.  Bleach IS different than a kitchen knife.  A kitchen knife IS different than nuclear waste.  It's a cute semantic argument to say "none of those things is inherently dangerous if you know what you are doing" - but the fact is that you can't own high level nuclear waste as long as you "know what you're doing."  The risks to other people are too high.

If guns only killed their owners I'd be 100% on board with the whole "blame the user not the object."  But the fact is that people make mistakes.  If that mistake means you spill bleach on your carpet and have to live with a white spot, then no worries.  If that mistake means you kill yourself, that's sad - but something you are 100% in charge of.  If that mistake means you kill your neighbor's child - then no, it doesn't make sense to just say "it was his fault not the gun's, no changes required."

Gun safety instructors have accidentally shot the students they were teaching gun safety to.  That pretty much invalidates the argument that "if you know what you are doing, your gun is safe."

blaming the object is already a false argument.  Much of the proposed gun regulations DO IN FACT address the user.  background checks, training, storage,  I wish the gun lobby would stop pretending that they actually support ANY legislation - they are not willing to move 1 mm to make gun viol;ence stats improve.  not a smidgen.  So when they talk about not blaming the object I usually tell them to fuck off given that they are not willing to have a piece of legislation that would address people either.

Florida military member kills three in Illinois bowling alley - you cannot even trust those well trained in arms to use them safely or appropriately - so even the people argument fails

Nashville Bomber - 'anyone who really wants to build a bomb is going to build a bomb - so what's the point of having any bomb laws?'

Bottom line is that America loves their guns, they love the gun violence, they love dirty harry and john wayne and they see the role of the gun as solving problems instead of creating them.  America cannot wait for the opportunity to plug a fellow american for some perceived threat to their lives or property - they relish it.

Edited December 29, 2020 by tkhayes

[billeisele 122]

On 12/28/2020 at 2:49 PM, billvon said:

1) Better mental health care
2) Background checks for everyone who obtains a gun.  Period.
3) Local law enforcement power to confiscate guns when there is a reasonable suspicion (as determined by a court) of mental illness.

For starters.

 

Bill - plenty of common ground. I agree with all of these.

I'd modify #3 to allow an ownership transfer to a family member. That person would be held liable if the original owner obtained possession of the firearm.

Of course the specific details would have to be resolved for each of these but the intent is valid.

Edited December 30, 2020 by billeisele

[billeisele 122]

On 12/28/2020 at 10:32 PM, kallend said:

Automatic prison term for straw purchases. No exceptions.

Automatic prison term for transferring a weapon to a disqualified person. No exceptions.

Mandatory reporting if gun is stolen or lost.

Background check on all purchases, even private ones.

Doubt those punishments would be deemed fair and reasonable. There are plenty of worse offenses that don't carry those sentences.

Straw purchases and transfers to disqualified people should be treated more harshly. I think the challenge is actually proving it was a straw purchase. In SC one can buy a gun then a couple weeks later decide to sell it. That's legal. It seems that the more "enforceable" path would be to require that private sales or transfers require a background check or ownership of a CWP. That can easily be done through a licensed gun dealer. Something similar is done regularly for mail order or out of state purchases. Personally I won't sell a gun to anyone that I don't know or if they don't have a current CWP, and I keep a record of any sale.

Not sure of the value of mandatory reporting for lost or stolen. One of the big problems we have in SC is theft from cars. There are plenty of incidences where neighborhoods are "raided" and every car is checked for unlocked doors. They are looking for quick cash from electronics, guns and other high value items. That's evidenced by the large number of catalytic converters being stolen. Dang druggies. 

Our sheriff has said two things: 1) every citizen should have two guns, one in the car and one in the house, and, 2) lock your cars. If you have a gun in your car, take it inside at night.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Dang druggies. 

Our sheriff has said two things: 1) every citizen should have two guns, one in the car and one in the house, and, 2) lock your cars. If you have a gun in your car, take it inside at night.

I'm thinking your Dang Sheriff is a Dang Druggie. Seriously, what a yo he is. First, even in Kallend's neighborhood in Chicago not everyone needs two guns-one in the cabin and one in your vintage MG. Further, if the armed citizenry needs to be told to not leave their guns in the car overnight I'd say that's an argument for serious gun control. Clearly where you live things are way out of whack. Is the dipshit Sheriff elected?

[kallend 1,619]

Glad I live in a safe neighborhood on the south side of Chicago, and not the crime infested place where Billeisele lives.

[billeisele 122]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm thinking your Dang Sheriff is a Dang Druggie. Seriously, what a yo he is. First, even in Kallend's neighborhood in Chicago not everyone needs two guns-one in the cabin and one in your vintage MG. Further, if the armed citizenry needs to be told to not leave their guns in the car overnight I'd say that's an argument for serious gun control. Clearly where you live things are way out of whack. Is the dipshit Sheriff elected?

Joe - This is SC, there are plenty of guns around. Sheriff Leon Lott has been in office for many years and is a top notch guy. He's held many positions in law enforcement, been the sheriff for 14 years, is 67 years old and looks like he's 55. He's a Democrat that easily gets reelected in a mostly Republican area. Bottom line is he has a complete resume, provides great service, his officers are all kinds of folks, and he holds them all to a high standard. 

He's got a large County to protect that covers everything from the capital city, the seat of state government, poor areas, affluent areas, subsidized housing developments, and all the way out to rural areas with farmland. Basically all kinds of people and situations. 

When the recent "peaceful" protests started he teamed with the City and State law enforcement agencies, and put that problem to rest. They allowed and protected peaceful protests but arrested anyone involved in rioting or looting. They used video and help from the public to track down dozens of people. They have a good record of keeping confidential information confidential so the public isn't scared to help. Amen to Team Blue.

Leon just tells it like it is. "There is crime everywhere and we can't be everywhere. If someone is threatening your life it will be too late when we arrive even if we are there in 5 minutes. If you own a gun, be responsible with it and get training. And don't leave it in your car."

[billeisele 122]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Glad I live in a safe neighborhood on the south side of Chicago, and not the crime infested place where Billeisele lives.

That's a good one. We don't have much serious crime. Too many citizens are armed. And around here people still say please and thank you, and open the door for each other.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 minute ago, billeisele said:

Joe - This is SC, there are plenty of guns around. Sheriff Leon Lott has been in office for many years and is a top notch guy. He's held many positions in law enforcement, been the sheriff for 14 years, is 67 years old and looks like he's 55. He's a Democrat that easily gets reelected in a mostly Republican area. Bottom line is he has a complete resume, provides great service, his officers are all kinds of folks, and he holds them all to a high standard. 

He's got a large County to protect that covers everything from the capital city, the seat of state government, poor areas, affluent areas, subsidized housing developments, and all the way out to rural areas with farmland. Basically all kinds of people and situations. 

When the recent "peaceful" protests started he teamed with the City and State law enforcement agencies, and put that problem to rest. They allowed and protected peaceful protests but arrested anyone involved in rioting or looting. They used video and help from the public to track down dozens of people. They have a good record of keeping confidential information confidential so the public isn't scared to help. Amen to Team Blue.

Leon just tells it like it is. "There is crime everywhere and we can't be everywhere. If someone is threatening your life it will be too late when we arrive even if we are there in 5 minutes. If you own a gun, be responsible with it and get training. And don't leave it in your car."

Alright. Seeing as he's a Democrat I'll go along with whatever.