Senseless gun death this week

[Courtesy Flush]

If you're a gun fanatic, learn to play safe. A woman I know lost her 18-year-old daughter this week when her future son-in-law accidentally discharged his gun indoors, and the bullet passed through a wall, killing his fiancee in the next room.

I looked at the guy's Facebook profile, and even now his profile picture is a shot of himself holding a rifle with a scope (looks like an assault rifle, but I know nothing about guns), trying to look badass. I can't believe nobody has told him he should remove that pic.

I just don't understand the love affair with guns. I agree they have their place, but they're not a tool to many people. They're a toy.

[maxsolomon]

1. if anyone takes your bait, they'll just chalk it up to negligence

i.e. not following proper procedure.

but you know what? young males are often clumsy and mostly boneheaded. so the safest practice is to have no gun in the house, period. no gun, no dead fiance.

[Courtesy Flush]

2. True, but negligent people have equal access to guns. nt

[slackmaster]

3. Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools.

More and more kids grow up without at least one parent who is qualified to teach the basics. Lessons on the rules of safe handling, and how to unload common types of firearms, should be offered in public schools just as they teach driver education, drug abuse resistance, and safe sexual practices.

[DissedByBush]

10. It used to be

Seriously, I took it in the 9th grade.

It was a requirement.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. They simply *refuse* to accept the proper progressive line about guns there n/t

[zinnisking]

30. And they are incredible crybabies who can't handle a critical post.

WaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAHhhhhhh!

WAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaHHHHHH!

[iverglas]

6. heh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=4235&mesg_id=4449

my third to last paragraph. ;)

Oh, and re what I said in that post about the Dianne Feinstein Big Lie -- I hadn't even seen this post here in the Guns forum yet today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=458447&mesg_id=458550

(and see my reply)

[zinnisking]

9. .

I like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x449853#450207

The little that I've been here, I've seen insipid teabaggers like Rick Perry defended with great affection when doing the same thing Feinstein did. It makes me want to puke.

I don't even like Feinstein. But Rick Perry... m-o-r-a-n. Absolute moran. As are his defenders.

[gejohnston]

11. your point is pointless

The difference is a photo taken immediately after firing a blank in the air. It is a blank gun incapable of firing live rounds. Given the design of the revolver, he can not fire again by simply pulling the trigger even if it could. Even then, it is not aimed at any person.

Feinstien on the other hand has her finger on the trigger without just after nor intent of firing. She is also pointing the muzzle in the direction of other people, an absolute no no even if it is unloaded. The rifle is a real gun capable of firing live rounds.
See the difference?

http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2010/04/perry-shoots-up-downtown-fort-worth.html#ixzz1VEIhrJeT

The right wing engages in petty cheap shots because they have nothing of value to offer. We should be above such nonsense.

[iverglas]

15. WHO FUCKING CARES???

The gun that Feinstein was holding was UNLOADED and possibly disabled -- as confirmed by the "LEO" WHO SUPERVISED THE THING.

Law enforcement officials DO NOT hand loaded firearms to politicians addressing crowds, for the love of god.

Who fucking cares what she was doing with A FIREARM INCAPABLE OF FIRING ANYTHING?

Christalmighty, do you hear yourself?? --
"The right wing engages in petty cheap shots because they have nothing of value to offer."

You said it, friend.

Now does somebody have some confirmation that Rick Perry KNEW TO A CERTAINTY that the thing he was firing was loaded with blanks?

[gejohnston]

20. If the muzzle was pointed in my direction, I would fucking care

Take a drive north and ask the same question. Don't forget your rain gear and mosquito repellent.

[SteveM]

21. You seem to, you're here...

"The gun that Feinstein was holding was UNLOADED and possibly disabled -- as confirmed by the "LEO" WHO SUPERVISED THE THING."

You know the refrain: "I didn't kno-o-o-w the gun was loaded." I don't care who supervised what kind of firearm, you don't engage in those practices, esp. with a firearm which does not lock back. And one shouldn't set an example by pointing it (all macho-like) with a finger on the trigger. Basic stuff, dear.

"Law enforcement officials DO NOT hand loaded firearms to politicians addressing crowds, for the love of god."

And did Diane check to see if the gun was loaded/unloaded/disabled or not? Best practices require that someone handing a gun to another first unload, remove mags (if applicable), and open the breach to inspection before transfer is made. The person receiving the gun would be obliged to perform such tasks if the other person does not.

Both Feinstein and Perry are jackasses. Both are arrogant and won't be told when they are wrong. Ring a bell?

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. It gets better! Apparently the "LEO" was no cop, it was Willie Brown

According to the link Iverglas has given before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=179066#179175

http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html

I like this other DiFi quote as well from the same iverglas-approved link:

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) on terrorism and self-defense:
The following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995:
"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home."

"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

Guns are ok for nice people like her, but not for you rabble...

[iverglas]

31. anybody here been the target of a terrorist group?

Anybody else succeeded to a political office because the previous incumbent was murdered by an intruder with a gun? Anybody had a bomb planted at their home, or had the windows of their home shot out? Been the subject of repeated death threats even? Anybody had ALL OF THOSE THINGS happen to them?

Eh?

Anybody had those things happen to them BECAUSE THEY WERE AN ELECTED DEMOCRAT performing duties assigned to them following a democratic process?

Guns are ok for nice people like her, but not for you rabble...

Demagoguery is par for the course in some places, but at Democratic Underground?

Here's another little bit of it:

I like this other DiFi quote as well from the same iverglas-approved link:

C'mon, somebody seems to have the complete collected works of iverglas stockpiled. So here's what I said about the bit from the stentorian:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=68319&mesg_id=68466

In the law biz, it's called an "admission against interest":

Quoting an adverse source that has said something that supports your own case. Git it? Yer so smart, I know you do.

I especially like what our esteemed former moderator said in that thread:

I will stand corrected
and say that she was foolish to handle the <prop> that way because it allows all of our fellow democrats who would rather devote all their energies in bashing her rather than unselecting Bush an opening they shouldn't have had.

Speaking of that, I read this wonderful bit from our own newyawker99 that I would like to post. This IS directed at several of our Gungeon folks, though not anyone in this lineage.

I would also like to remind you that the purpose
of this site is to see George W Bush removed
from the White House. Those who spend most of
their time in threads that talk about one issue
but never voice an opinion about the Democratic
candidate or other issues of importance to
Democrats come under suspicion of not being
Democrats at all.

He also said -- this was in 2004, remember: "Damn, I could swear I said we had discussed that Feinstein pic to death - otherwise I woulda stayed out of this."

Here's a post by another esteemed former moderator about the whole business:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=132720&mesg_id=132771

And here is what that source you cutely claim is approved by me admitted, that is our subject here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=68319&mesg_id=68384

I received a reply on 3/13/2000 from Mayor Brown re: my letter about this incident.

He states that:

1.Ms. Feinstein voluntarily relinquished her pistol permit and weapon a long time ago.

2.The firearm shown above was "unloaded, disabled, and 'locked.'"

But let us not stop excoriating an elected Democrat here at DU for all the things she actually never did, eh?

It must be painful at times to have this kind of fixation, I would think.

[one-eyed fat man]

42. Well, actually...........

"...anybody here been the target of a terrorist group?








Just about everyone in western Europe during the Seventies and Eighties who wore a US or NATO uniform or plates on their car. I recall some 30 or so attacks on US installations, troop billets, or clubs and discos where GI's would hang out during my 12 years in Germany. Not all those they killed or tried to kill were as high profile as the USAREUR commander when they hit the car carrying him and his wife with an RPG-7 outside of Heidelburg.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38447-2005Feb19.html

There are those who view members of the group as "misguided, sensitive young people," and not "murderers -- killers . . . who held no regard for democracy." What qualifies as senseless violence by the venal right wing is over-eager revolutionary fervor when committed by the left wing.

[SteveM]

38. Yep, typical of authoritarian elites. nt

[iverglas]

29. here's a thought

And did Diane check to see if the gun was loaded/unloaded/disabled or not?

Why don't you ask her? Or come up with some other way of demonstrating that what she did was so evil that it calls for constant repetition at Democratic Underground, month after month, down through the years.

The onus is on the ones making the claim. That will be be you and your friends.

Maybe we could have an occasional bit of relief by talking about Dick Cheney actually shooting his hunting companion, eh? How would that be?

I'll bet that if we really tried, we could even find something nice to say about some Democrat somewhere ...

[SteveM]

40. Ask her? Ask someone already engaging in bad practices and showing the world...

not only how ignorant and arrogant she is, but sending the message to other ignorant people that her posturing with a gun is somehow okay? Totally unnecessary. The onus is on the person engaging in bad practices, not a viewer. She ain't on a Hollywood set.

You seem interested in Dick Cheney (who received a well-deserved Elmer award from Field & Stream), so weigh in.

The rest is off-topic as you know, but I liked H.H. Humphrey and I like Lloyd Doggett. And I have said so in other forums (if you ever go to them). LBJ, sans Vietnam, was a good one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. You seem very sure of facts that you can not acertain or verify

What Feinstein did was dumb...and most adults know that.

[zinnisking]

28. Thanks for the link. Looking at the picture again, I see some tall buildings in the area.

Despite your effrontery, my point is valid. IMO, you have validated it.

Like it's routine, you try to give a laudable clarification for Perry. I think perhaps it's because you see him as an ally against the gun grabbers that you are confident that perry was anything but irresponsible and the gun was SAFE and PERSONALLY and adequately inspected enough to be fired in a crowd dotted with tall buildings.

On the other hand, the fact that Feinstein is a DemocraT gun grabber, you err on the side of skepticism and you and you comrades are !OUTRAGED! when she does something similar, but slightly different than Perry, a maverick of the 2A.

I won't alert on your cheeky post because I'm not a crybaby. I'd rather see it stay in context.

[gejohnston]

32. how was it cheeky?

World English Dictionary
cheeky

— adj , cheekier , cheekiest
disrespectful in speech or behaviour; impudent: a cheeky child

'cheekily

— adv

'cheekiness

— n

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheeky

Context is everything. Just because some guy parroted the "Al Qaida said you can buy machine guns at Wal Mart, it must be true," nonsense in Crooks and Liars. Just because it was in a progressive site should I praise a poorly written article, complete with an equally unprofessional retraction simply because of who published it? Bullshit. It was crap and I told him so and why. Letting nonsense and dishonesty slide because it serves an ideology creates problems in the long term. How? You win elections with the mostly moderate/non-ideological middle. Being dishonest or incompetent on a subject that many Americans know something about, easy to fact check, and not very complicated makes the average open minded person to question your credibility on more complex issues. Media Matters made the same mistake, ignoring the fact that McClatchy put the Wikileaks online.

Like it's routine, you try to give a laudable clarification for Perry. I think perhaps it's because you see him as an ally against the gun grabbers that you are confident that perry was anything but irresponsible and the gun was SAFE and PERSONALLY and adequately inspected enough to be fired in a crowd dotted with tall buildings.
No, I took the time to read the article and put it in context. The blue smoke you see is from firing blanks, modern gun powder does not make it. He did not fire in the crowd. The facts of the situation is what it is, I don't give a rat's ass about the people involved. It comes with knowing something on the subject.

here is a better view.


On the other hand, the fact that Feinstein is a DemocraT gun grabber, you err on the side of skepticism and you and you comrades are !OUTRAGED! when she does something similar, but slightly different than Perry, a maverick of the 2A.
America's Mayor Rudy and everyone at Brady and VPC are gun grabbing Republicans. Quite frankly, if I did the same thing that Feinstein even as a ten year old, I would be grounded royally. Had I done it in the military, even with the bolt back and without magazine, my ass would have been grass. That said, being a "gun grabber" is,Raymond Kessler pointed out, is basically a conservative or reactionary at heart.
http://faculty.sulross.edu/rkessler/

I won't alert on your cheeky post because I'm not a crybaby. I'd rather see it stay in context.
What did I say that was inappropriate?

[zinnisking]

34. it wasn't

Context is everything. Just because some guy parroted the "Al Qaida said you can buy machine guns at Wal Mart, it must be true," nonsense in Crooks and Liars. Just because it was in a progressive site should I praise a poorly written article, complete with an equally unprofessional retraction simply because of who published it? Bullshit. It was crap and I told him so and why. Letting nonsense and dishonesty slide because it serves an ideology creates problems in the long term. How? You win elections with the mostly moderate/non-ideological middle. Being dishonest or incompetent on a subject that many Americans know something about, easy to fact check, and not very complicated makes the average open minded person to question your credibility on more complex issues. Media Matters made the same mistake, ignoring the fact that McClatchy put the Wikileaks online.

I'm sure this was meant to be posted elsewhere and I don't know the context but Media Matters is usually spot on and CrooksAndLiars Pwn. Agreed?! :7

No, I took the time to read the article and put it in context. The blue smoke you see is from firing blanks, modern gun powder does not make it. He did not fire in the crowd. The facts of the situation is what it is, I don't give a rat's ass about the people involved. It comes with knowing something on the subject.

here is a better view

America's Mayor Rudy and everyone at Brady and VPC are gun grabbing Republicans. Quite frankly, if I did the same thing that Feinstein even as a ten year old, I would be grounded royally. Had I done it in the military, even with the bolt back and without magazine, my ass would have been grass. That said, being a "gun grabber" is,Raymond Kessler pointed out, is basically a conservative or reactionary at heart.

He's shooting upward in an area dotted with tall buildings. Not quite as brazen as pointing into a crowd n front of you I admit. You are willing to give Perry the benefit of doubt that he is capable of examining the pistol and knowing it is blank'ed. Why are you so hard on Feinstein? What if she had a blank adapter and a shit eating grin on her face when she was pointing it somewhere inappropriate?

What did I say that was inappropriate?

Nothing, mostly. "your point is pointless" was a little cheeky but I don't give a hoot. I'm was just salty that #4 was deleted.

[gejohnston]

35. mostly

The post expanding the point that playing culture warrior is a loser and noble lies will screw you in the long term. The examples C&R and MM were perfect examples of blindly putting ideology before truth. The first was the over reaction a few months ago of some clown claiming to be with Al Qaida encouraging followers to go to gun shows and buy machine guns, where I guess National Firearms Act of 1934 don't apply. Many of the progressive media took it at face value, CL was simply the worst.
Media Matters simply took their pissing match with Faux to the absurd by not double checking. What happened was Wayne P. was on Faux talking about the Mexican drug gangs were getting heavy weapons, machine guns etc from black market and not so much semi autos from US gun stores. The US knows it based on cables from Wikileaks dumps. MM blindly said it was total bullshit and all of the guns going to Mexico was from US gun stores and the evil gun lovers (never mind the fact that the bong owners contribute the money.) Problem for MM's credibility is that McClatchy and other news agencies in the US and Latin America back up what Wayne boy said. McClatchy even put the Wikileaks messages online.
MM is usually spot on, I agree. CL, I have not read that much.

It was a staged event with a gun incapable of firing live rounds. The kind the usually use at tourist old west shoot outs (with one exception, but I think they have or will be buying some after some asshole put a live round in). I hope he would know how to check, but how much of his gun cred is real or image? Bush had a "ranch" but is scared shitless of horses (according to former Mex President Fox.) The coyote he shot was most likely either rabid or imaginary.

As for Feinstein, Like I said in another post, if I did that as a kid or in the military my ass would be grass. Big red blank adapter? If it were pointed at me, probably. I was in a chow hall line once, when an army guy's slung M-249 SAW (a belt fed light machine gun)got caught on something and tilted towards the server. The cook and the rest of us could see that the weapon was unloaded (no ammo belt) but the cook was still freaked out and pissed off. It was a military cook, before SecDef Cheney fucked up the military.

I think Feinstein is basically an authoritarian that leans too far to the right when it comes to GWOT and the MIC.

[zinnisking]

36. Gawd I couldn't agree with you more about Feinstein. IIRC her husband is a military contractor.

I'm sure that didn't influence any of her MIC votes. And her take on Net Neutrality puts her at the top of my Shit List. The sooner she retires and joins a lobbying firm, the better off we'll all be.

I'll be back to edit this after I finish my midnight snack...

The post expanding the point that playing culture warrior is a loser and noble lies will screw you in the long term. The examples C&R and MM were perfect examples of blindly putting ideology before truth.

So it wasn't a mistake putting the MM rant in your reply to me? You posted it for my benefit? I was playing a culture warrior and trying to tell noble lies?

I have no Gun agenda. I support the felony laws and a number of other restrictions, but so do some of you.

I'm confused. Fuck it. I'm going to sleep.

[gejohnston]

39. The MM rant

was illustrating a larger point, had nothing to do with you.

[iverglas]

16. why thank you,

kind sir. ;)

[PavePusher]

7. Maybe Facebook isn't his biggest priority right now.

Sheesh....

[Courtesy Flush]

14. Read my post

That was not the main thrust of my message, plus I clearly stated that I thought someone should ask him to remove it, NOT that he should make Facebook his priority right now.

And for the record, the girl's mother has posted several times on FB about her grief and funeral arrangements. That's what people do these days.

[onehandle]

8. Clearly you are against the Constitution...

...either that, or you think like a normal person.

One of the two. Someone will be along shortly to tell us both which.

[Hoyt]

12. That trying to "look" and be "badass" is clearly one of the biggest problems with gun fanatics.

Hardly the only problem. But if "badass" were not a factor, we'd have a lot less guns, gun tragedies, and gun issues.

Keep reading here, where you'll find a lot of fanatics posting amazing/shocking/callous thoughts. My latest "favorite" was from those whose major concern as Hurricane Irene approached the coast was "what is your gun of choice" to shoot those fleeing Irene.

[oneshooter]

13. Ya know Hoyt, your revision of the truth comes real close to lying. Not allowed here. n/t

[iverglas]

18. something else I need an explanation of

Is "coming real close to lying" not allowed here? I hadn't thought so.

Shit, lying is allowed here.

So what are you on about?

You seem to be confused. It's accusing other posters of lying that isn't allowed here. Came real close to that, you did.

I'd suggest that you not accuse other posters even of "coming real close" to violating a rule you just made up.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Nice one

[iverglas]

17. my personal favourite, of course

One of Kimveer Gill's many self-portraits as badass before he took his gun to town and killed one student at Dawson College and injured several others before being intercepted by police.


My personal favourites among our fellow posters are the ones who approve of killing people engaged in attempted theft and pronounce then to be scum and their lives to be worth nothing.

I'm still trying to figure out whether these are the same posters who pontificate about addressing those "root causes of crime" ... and how they keep their heads from exploding, of so ...

[SteveM]

22. You mean like Diane Feinstein? Coulda told you that. nt

[Logical]

19. I would agree many people are obsessed with them. Not a good thing. n-t

[SteveM]

23. I do not "play safe" with my guns. I don't "play" with them...

Perhaps that is the problem with some people. They "play" with them. The vast majority of folks do not "play" with them because there is no "safe" way to do that.

"I just don't understand the love affair with guns."

I don't either. I've hunted for over 50 years, been to shooting ranges, keep arms for self-protection. I just don't run across these "lovers." Must be my bad looks or personality!

:-)

[Atypical Liberal]

24. I play with mine every couple of months.

That is, if you consider competitive target shooting "play".

[SteveM]

25. I don't consider it play, though shooting sports are fun, enjoyable,

even pleasurable. "Play" suggests a randomness or unpredictability, loose borders, toying.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. I dunno...

Wikipedia's definition of play seems to suit competitive shooting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_%28activity%29

[SteveM]

37. Maybe. I did note that play (whatever the type) has its own set of rules,

even it is from without usual societal customs. And even in "stunt" play (dangerous forms), there are rules and the dangers associated with the play are expected and limited to the players.

"Don't ever play with guns, son..." J. Cash

BTW, I think Cash owned a Remington Model 8 or one of its successors. I'd love to have one of those (.35 REM blowback barrel), but most of the existing old stock is pretty ratty. M. Kalashnikov may have borrowed one of its features, as well as from the Garand, the Japanese Arisaka (chrome barrel lining), and the first German assault rifle (top-mounted gas).