Woman (80) dies of gunshot by husband (87) - mistaken for a burglar

[enough]

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/7248156.htm

Posted on Thu, Nov. 13, 2003
Elkins Park woman dies of gunshot by husband
Grace Pritz, 80, was mistaken for a burglar, police said. Joseph Pritz, 87, is hospitalized.
By Oliver Prichard
Inquirer Staff Writer


An 80-year-old Elkins Park woman has died of injuries suffered when her husband shot her in the head after mistaking her for a burglar, the Montgomery County coroner said yesterday.

Grace Pritz was shot about 1 a.m. Tuesday in her living room by her husband, Joseph Pritz, 87, who then called 911. She was pronounced dead at 5:25 p.m. Tuesday at Abington Memorial Hospital.

Joseph Pritz, whose mental capacities had diminished in recent years, has been committed to Norristown State Hospital and is not likely to be charged with a crime, Montgomery County First District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman said.

<more>

[loudnclear]

1. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

There is no way out of this quagmire with guns. That's precisely why I want to sell my dead dad's guns.

[madddog]

2. Whatcha Got?

I can alwasy use some more!

[NewzJunkE]

3. I too am iterested ...

.. how many, what makes and how much ?

[0007]

8. About a 155 mm long tom howitzer?

What's it worth to ya?

Yeah, 'tis a M-8 self-propelled jobber.

Save a few buck and smack junior in the chops, 'eh?

[northzax]

10. you know, I would

but the godamn gun nazis in DC only allow me four howitzers above 150 mm for personal use.

[0007]

38. deleted

[northzax]

39. well, someone took it

and the tires were exactly the same those on a hummer towing a 155mm howitzer. seemed logical that you might be involved.

[madddog]

14. is it

pre ban or post ban? :D

[northzax]

6. sell them?

what, you don't think there's a way out of this quagmire, so you want to pass the problem onto someone else? oh, that's responsible, kinda like saying "eh, this heroin is bad for me, anyone want to buy it?

If you really think the guns are the problem, shouldn't you destroy them? not pass them on so someone else can get shot?

[CarinKaryn]

109. Yes, take responsibility for ending the problem

You can occasionally trade guns to the government in exchange for coupons to grocery markets or amusement parks. The police then take the gun off the streets. You can then donate the coupoun to a needy family. Everyone wins!

Don't allow that gun to survive, someone may die.
How would you feel if you had sold the gun to the man in this story? Or the Columbine killers?

[UpInArms]

4. this is absolutely so very sad

"diminished capacity" - and still holding on to their guns - more and more fearful as they become less and less able to understand the world around them.

:(

[madddog]

15. Much Scarier

to me is the fact that many 80+ year old people still DRIVE. I fear getting run into by some old coot a lot more than I do getting shot by one.

[thebigidea]

23. I'm more frightened by coots with nail clippers

I mean, what's dangerous about a gun? Only leftist extremists are frightened by the thought of a senile man with a shotgun.

[madddog]

26. or

a senile old man with a car...seems to me I recall something about an old guy plowing into a crowd of people a few months back.

[thebigidea]

37. I hope you realize I'm joking. A Ronald Reagan with a rifle would be wrong

[UpInArms]

41. how about

Charleton Heston - who vows that "you'll take my gun from my cold dead fingers" - with alzheimers setting in -- eeeekkkk!

[saigon68]

28. The Chimpanzee scares these people to get votes

They think the Taliban or Al Quaida is coming through the window.

Old people, who are scared shitless believe that Shrub and Wolfie are saving them

[underpants]

5. I'm reminded of the guy in Va.Beachwho hatcheted his mother-in-law

thinking she was a raccoon in their storage shed, he said.

Generally raccoon don't scream "Please! No! Stop!"

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

18. It depends on how many of those little mushrooms you have when

considering what Racoons say as you chop them up.

[Briar]

7. A coincidentally appropriate quote

U.S. Expats in UK Hit by Wave of 'Anti-Bushism'
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=2&u=/nm/20031113/wl_nm/bush_britain_expats_dc

from Newsweek Magazine's London correspondent Stryker McGuire.


"Even among friendly Britons, there's a growing skepticism about the gun-toting, electric-chairing land that has let Dubya be Dubya for nigh on three years now.

[NoPasaran]

86. Yeah we tote guns but

"electric-chairing"? Puh-LEEEZ note we are now "lethal-injectin'"

[Zero Gravitas]

9. Another Home Kept Safe

[northzax]

11. yup, that'll show them burglars

who's the boss round there.

[Benhurst]

12. She died with her boots on. n/t

[madddog]

13. Now That I've Been a Wise Ass, I'll be Serious

It's fairly obvious this guy violated the absolute first rule of gun safety...making sure of your target. You can argue all you want about whether he should have had the gun or not, but the gun didn't leap off the table and shoot the woman by itself. This is a tragic situation, and will by used by the usual crowd as fodder for why all guns should be banned, I'm sure.

People die every day from negligent use of cars, boats, planes, farm machinery, etc, but I don't see anyone talking about a "quagmire" and trying to ban them all.

Of course, if we try to apply logic to this argument, the fact that murder/violence took place for millennia PRIOR to the development of the firearm is an annoying fact that we'd have to overlook, isn't it? People have been killing each other for thousands of years...I guess if we really want to get serious about crime, we need to ban CRIMINALS!

[northzax]

16. as this gets shuttled to te Dungeon

I would like to point out a few interesting flaws in your logic:

People die every day from negligent use of cars, boats, planes, farm machinery, etc, but I don't see anyone talking about a "quagmire" and trying to ban them all.


this is completely true. As a society, we have decided that the social benefit of possessing cars, boats, airplanes and high yield thermonuclear devices outweighs the potential risks to individual human safety. Of course, we have also determined that, in order to increase that safety, each of these items is licensed. In none of these circumstances can I obtain an operational version of one of these devices without proving that I am capable of operating one safely. I can not use one without a government issued license to do so. Also, the manufacture of each of these machines is regulated by the government. Chrysler cannot sell me an inherently unsafe automobile. I can't even build one for myself that doesn't have a seatbelt (you may notice than when PBS rebuilt the Wright flyer, they were required by FAA regulations to put a seatbelt in it.) I also cannot operate any of these machines in the Us without obtaining insurance to compensate any individual that I may damage in the course of that operation. Now certainly there are people who violate these regulations, but for the most part, they make us all safer. Since you place firearms in the same category, I can only assume that you would support the same sorts of regulations for guns?

[madddog]

17. Nope...not a flaw at all

my point was very simple...you didn't refute it, you simply obfuscated it by attempting to draw a parallel between regulation of certain items and banning them...which are two very separate and distinct propositions.

Also, the fact does remain, that the Constitution doesn't specificlaly give people the right to own boats, cars, etc., where it does with the right to keep and bear arms, I'm sure much to your chagrin. With over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country, I'd submit to you there is more than enough regulation of firearms. And, don't forget the BATF...what other manufacturing sector has it's own gov't watchdog?

BTW, boats aren't licensed in the manner you're suggesting; any idiot with enough money can buy one, and in most states, iirc, you don't need a specific operators permit for one. Boat owners pay a registration fee for them, arguably as a revenue gathering tool by the state. I owned a boat for years, and never had to get any sort of license for it.

You can operate a motor vehicle in many states without insurance, but you must pay into the state's uninsured motorist pool...so technically, you don't have insurance. Anyway, that's really an economic argument.

I stick by my original point.

Let my ask you a question...if some drunk takes out you wife and kids in a car wreck, are you gonna sue GM?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

19. GM Does not make a product that the sole purpose of is killing.

I've heard that argument before here. Is that in the NRA meme or are you someone back from the dead?

[madddog]

33. what's

a "meme"?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

51. I guess it's a word that "people devoid of mental acumen" know

the meaning of and you don't.

You might have to go to the OED to find it.

You know the OED?

[northzax]

61. oh, c'mon BP

you can't complain about civility and not practise it. you're better than that.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

105. LOL... It was a quote from an earlier post to me from the questioner.

In that sense, I hope it wasn't taken to be uncivil in refering to myself by his descriptors.

[madddog]

68. its too new for me...

only been a word since 1976. You've probably waited for 6 mos to try and work that into a conversation, tell the truth lol. Besides, it's origin is FRENCH for God's sake.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

106. I Actually learned the word here at DU in several threads about

stareting a Question W (?) meme. I think it was BevHarris and Nost thathat made meme a common word at DU.

Before that, I was not familiar with it.

[northzax]

22. I want one gun regulation

in order to posess a firearm, you have to demonstrate that you are capable of using the device in a safe manner. Hell, you want a 50 caliber gaatling gun in your front yard? fine. but you have to prove to the community that you are capable of operating it in a safe manner. That means you are aware of the risks of operating it, you can store it safely (most jurisdictions after all, you have to park a car during your driving test) you have to demonstrate your ability to discharge the weapon and hit your intended target. You have to demonstrate your knowledge of the risks of using the device while under the influence of intoxicants. You then have to register the identifying marks of each individual weapon with the local authority. You get that license and you can walk down main street with a missile launcher strapped to your back for all I care. As long as a: if you use it, and I get damaged, I am compensated in some way (either the state uninsured gun carrier law or private insurance) and there is a method to trace that damage to you.

but, I forgot. guns are sacred, and the thousands of people killed each year in this country are simply the price we pay for our freedoms. what was I thinking?

[northzax]

24. and while I'm thinking about it

if GM makes a car, and sells it to someone with the knowledge that he is likely to kill someone with it, yes, I am going to sue them.

Just as I'll sue Dow Chemical if they dump PCPs in my drinking water, knowing that there is a likelyhood that I'll drink that water and die from cancer. but you wouldn't do that, right? after all, a cancer cluster is just the price we pay for our freedoms.

[Bandit]

25. I owned a boat for years, and never had to get any sort of license for it

I find fault with this statement. The US Coast Guard requires you to register your vessel and post registration numbers or documentation numbers in plain sight. Also they require you carry safety equipment such as fire extinguishers first aid equipment and flares and personel floatation devices for all occupants. They also require safety inspections annually. As far as drivers license you are correct that most states don't require one however you can be treated exactly the same as an automobile driver if you break navigational rules. You can receive a DWI while opperating a boat just as if you were driving a car.

[madddog]

36. yes...but

you don't need an operators license, ie, demonstrated ability to use the product safely. Things are changing in that regard, though...I wouldn't be surprised to see some states require it in a few years.

I don't believe the coast guard requires you to register your vessel, I believe that's the states, UNLESS you choose to document your vessel, as many do, to avoid onerous local property taxes. They also can't REQUIRE people on the vessel to wear the mandated safety equipment, either.

As for driver's licenses, I was talking about you don't have to have insurance...I think every state requires a license.

[Bandit]

40. Registration is required by the US Coast Guard if the vessel has a motor

It is fact. They don't require persons to wear Personal Floatation Device but require that there be one aboard for every person on the vessel. Plus horn, lights, first aid, fire extinguishers and flares.

[madddog]

46. ok...

but there's still no OPERATORS license required for pleasure craft, at least 'til I sold my boat in '98.

The Coast Guard safety course was not required at the time..it got me 10% off my insurance, but it wasn't mandated.

[saigon68]

29. The democrats will lose every time on this issue in the Midwest..

Wisconsin will go for Bush in 2004 if this issue is brought up to 850,000 deer hunters. And the Chimp and his handlers are out to start doing this.

There are some disruptors, (who I believe are paid for by the pukes) with outrageous registration and ban schemes. They are off the wall. They are then equated with the democrats, by the local repuke shills who try to convince hunters, that Gore etc want to take their guns.

Look at Gore in TN and ARK in 2000 and tell me I'm wrong.

[madddog]

31. not just

the Midwest...EVERYWHERE. This is why Dean will kick ass in NH, and is the ONLY candidate who might be able to attract gun owners back to voting Democratic.

[northzax]

32. and the great majority

of those 850,000 deer hunters have no problem with gun safety. I would wager most of them (all the ones I know) have taken gun safety classes, keep their guns unloaded and locked up and will never use thier deer rifles for anything except missing a deer from 50 yards. and if everyone did that, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

what gun owners need to realize is that the threat to their ownership of guns comes not from the left, but from the virulent orgasmic kooks. The mainstream has no problem with sensible gun regulation. I have no problem with responsible gun owners, only those who are unable or unwilling to apply modern gun safety techniques to modern life. The bad reputation of gun owners comes not from the anti-gun groups, but from the tiny minority who are ruining it for everyone else. Once gun owners realize that their voices have been hijacked by the freaks, we'll get something done about the problem of gun violence in this country.

[madddog]

52. OK...

what is YOUR idea of "sensible" gun laws? Of course you'd get 100 different answers to that question from people here and elsewhere. I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but who is this tiny minority of insiders ruining it for the rest of us? If your talking about CRIMINALS, then I agree, they are ruining it for all of us. The problem comes when certain people can't differentiate between crooks and law abiding citizens.

You want to see how well "sensible" gun control works, look at DC for God's sake. Right accross the river from me, THAT'S a crime free paradise, thanks to the fact that only criminals have guns lol.

I would venture to guess that most of the people in this country who are so adamantly opposed to guns have probably never had one, nor ever used one for any of the legal ways one can be used. They seem to think that firearms emit some sort of subliminal message to "commit a crime" so that even the most law abiding citizen will go off the deep and and start blasting his coworkers eventually.

Personally, I think Vermont has sensible gun laws...you probably don't agree. But I'd sure as sh** rather live in Vermont than DC, I know that.

[jpgray]

48. I would never say guns alone make a person a killer

But killing is made so much easier and impersonal with a gun, that deaths are bound to be more frequent when a firearm is available as compared to a knife.

[Lindacooks]

88. Wrong

"People die every day from negligent use of cars, boats, planes, farm machinery, etc, but I don't see anyone talking about a "quagmire" and trying to ban them all."

Guns have one purpose: to kill. Cars, boats, planes, farm machinery all have primary purposes which are good: travel, growing food, etc. Dying while using cars, boats, planes, and farm machinery are ACCIDENTS, NOT intended from primary use. Guns kill people. People with guns kill people. GUNS KILL. PERIOD. When are you gun lovers going to wake up and realize that our society is being destroyed by gun deaths? Once again, I bring up statistics; the U.S. has a staggeringly high incident of deaths by guns compared to other nations with strict gun control laws. And, of course, you will deny those statistics are accurate; therefore, it's impossible to argue with you. If you deny the sun rises in the east, I can't argue with you about the morning.

[madddog]

99. I could say the same thing...

the FBI cites between 1.5 and 2 MILLION defensive uses of a firearm each year in the U.S. You gun haters (if I'm a "gun lover", youre a gun hater)can't ever admit that there is a legitimate use of a firearm, either for personal protection, or for shooting sports that DON'T involve killing bambi, so I guess I could say we cant' argue with you, either.

At the end of the day, almost 80 million American gun owners won't have shot anyone. (Pardon my use of the future perfect tense, but I couldn't think of an easier way to say it).

The average, LAW ABIDING U.S. citizen has a much more likely chance of shark attack, drowning, and being bitten by a rattlesnake than dying by gun violence.

If you're ready to kiss off gun owners come '04, I hope you're gonna enjoy the next 5 years.

[SemperEadem]

102. I don't blame the gun, I blame a society that mainlines fear to the point

that a little old man, losing his grip on reality, felt that the only way he could feel safe was to keep a loaded hand gun in close proximity.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

20. I knew it wouldn't take long for the NRA types to defend this killing,

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

34. After reading your other posts in other forums, I would like to thank you

for suffering all of us fools that you find "devoid of mental acumen."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=6931

The link is on civility. It's something we're trying to reestablish at DU. You're invited to join in that effort!

[madddog]

84. Well

civility is a two way street...your initial post about "NRA type defending this killing", in light of my posts here earlier, seems to be a little over the top...and it's clear from that you don't really want to engage in any serious debate, since your other post is so value laden/judgemental as well.

Although the other gentleman that I'm engaging in a conversation here is holding a view contrary to mine, I don't think he will say I've insulted him or been uncivil to him. I hope he doesn't think that.

[northzax]

27. I'd like to thank Grace Pritz

for making the ultimate sacrifice, so that we all may remain free. Thank God that she was willing to take a bullet to save us from oppression and despotism. Thank you, Mrs. Pritz, you are a true American Hero.

[madddog]

30. ah, reduced to sarcasm

well, if you wanna play that game, then offer the same kudos to the 40,000 people who died in traffic related deaths...the price we pay so that you can drive the 1/2 mile to 7-11 to get yourself a slurpee lol.

BTW, have you seen the statistics on stairs and bathtub deaths...truly frightening.

The Democratic party better address this issue, or we better get used to lots of Republicans in office for the foreseeable future. Dean is the ONLY Dem who has a chance of attracting people gun owners, who left the party in droves in '02, back into the fold.

And, explain to me, outside of a total ban on guns AND confiscation, how anything would have prevented this particular tragedy?

[northzax]

35. the man is described as having dementia

you can take away that person's right to drive a car, but not own a gun. I'm not saying it would have, perhaps no one cared enough about him to take away his driver's license either, but I hope so, for his sake and other's.

think about this for a moment, my grandfather is blind and has some serious symptoms of senility. Jsut last week I was having a conversation with him, and all of a sudden he asked what time his dad is coming home. His father died in 1960. Now, given these lapses of reality, we have been able to prevent him from being swindled by scam artists (he needs to get certain spending approved by the family) he has full time care, he certainly can't drive a car. But, in one of his periods of coherence, he can go downtown and buy a gun. legally. this sound like a good idea to you? an 86 year old man who thinks he's 10 most of the time can buy a weapon? logical, ain't it?

oh, and by the way, I don't own a car, either.

[slackmaster]

42. My uncle's family disarmed him when he became demented

It started in March 2002 when he was diagnosed with brain cancer.

Surgery was performed, but it didn't whack the whole tumor complex so he went on chemotherapy plus radiation treatments. That plus the medication he was given to treat the horrible effects of the chemo left him in a very precarious mental state - He would go for walks and get lost 100 yards from his home of 50 years. Clearly he was not qualified to be around guns as he posed a risk to himself and everyone around him.

His family took prompt action. His wife and sons went through the whole big house and rounded up more than 60 firearms he had collected over the years. The only gun left in the house was my aunt's personal pistol, which she kept under careful control.

My uncle finally died in February. There was never a problem with firearms. My family has a tradition of responsible gun ownership as well as a deep commitment to take care of each others' needs no matter how difficult. Sometimes you have to impose your will and wisdom on older people when they have lost theirs. It happens with guns, cars, finances, or anything else capable of causing harm or loss.

Take care of your parents and grandparents, folks.

That's how responsible gun owning families behave. It's unfortunate that nobody was there to do the right thing for this couple when they needed help.

[madddog]

44. Exactly

good point, and job well done.

[northzax]

50. agree

That's how responsible gun owning families behave. It's unfortunate that nobody was there to do the right thing for this couple when they needed help. maybe nobody knew he had a gun? If is a paranoid old man, disturbed by dementia, perhaps noone knew he'd bought one. maybe his children are just as suprised as we are.

[madddog]

60. Well,

since we don't know, we shouldn't speculate...but then again, since we're talking hypothetically, maybe they should visit the old guy more than once a year, and find out what's going on with him and his wife.

[northzax]

62. maybe they weren't able to visit him?

maybe they're dead? maybe there are no children. maybe he hid it even from his wife? who knows? you're right, it's wrong to speculate, and wrong for you to blame people we don't even know exist for not visiting more than once a year.

[CarinKaryn]

110. Or maybe the govt can step in with sensible regulations

that prevent or disarm those who become a danger to society. Surely these two senior citizes had doctors who could have reported the danger the armed man presented. It'd be a crime to let the man drive, wouldn't it? But he can buy all the guns and ammo he wants?

[madddog]

43. Hold on...

Actually, there may be some laws that would stop your grandfather from legally buying a gun, if he's under treatment for certain mental problems or if he has ever been institutionalized. I don't know the specific law, but there are some questions on the state and federal forms you fill out to buy a gun dealing with this.

This is also one of those gray areas...do we strip a persons rights away because he's depressed for 2 months? Under medication for anxiety/depression following the death of a spouse? Now, if the old guy had gone out and treatened a neighbor, the chances are pretty good that he' be arrested, and the gun would cease to be an issue.

But the fact remains, in your grandfather's case, suppose your grandfather manages to pass his drivers test in one of his lucid moments...he can legally still drive. I suppose it's up you family members to see that he doesn't...but I'm sure you don't expect the .gov to come into his house and take his keys. Good luck getting a law past the AARP that says you can't drive past a certain age, for example.

Now, in retrospect, it looks like this guy shouldn't have had a gun...but once again, I'll go back to the question I threw out there earlier...how do we deal with these kinds of situations without a total ban/confiscation, or a registration requirement that would be difficult to enforce, and a nightmare to administer?

[slackmaster]

45. Section 922 of the United States Code almost applies, but it doesn't

It prohibits a licensed gun dealer from selling a gun to someone who has been adjudicated incompetent, but there is no provision to take away guns someone already owns.

People have to take care of their friends and families. Government can't handle all possible situations.

[NewzJunkE]

47. Wow ! ....

.. lively volley there between northzax and madddog. Read the whole thread. I'd have to give the bout to the 'dog 10-7 on the 10 point must system.

[northzax]

49. a nightmare to administer?

I laid out above the licensing requirements I suggest. You haven't responded. Driver's lcenses must be a nightmare to adminster, huh? you have a license, you can geta car, otherwise, your're SOL. yes, it would be difficult at the beginning, but I'd argue that the lives saved would be worth it, don't you think?

[slackmaster]

53. No license is required to buy a car

I bought a used SUV from a major car dealer last October and paid for it with a personal check. I drove it off the lot the same day.

Nobody ever asked to see a driver's license.

[northzax]

54. really?

that's very suprising. in my opinion, that dealer was negligent in not verifying your legal right to operate that vehicle before releasing it to you. Every time I've bought a car I have been required to show my license before I've been allowed to drive it away.

[slackmaster]

55. Probably diffusion of responsibility among the staff

I was surprised that they took a check for over $18,000 without checking my ID. They did call the bank to verify funds, but never asked me to identify myself nor did they verify my signature to any official document.

I agree they SHOULD check for a valid driver's license, but at least in California they have no legal obligation to do so. Had I promptly gotten into a wreck they might have faced civil liability.

[madddog]

57. Aha....

so if slackmaster does the dreaded DUI flaming car wreck thing that kills 3 innocent people, you would of course want to sue the CAR MANUFACTURER? No, you'd go after the DEALER. So why are the relatives of DC sniper victims suing BUSHMASTER?

[northzax]

64. WEll, first off

it was the Maryland and Virginia sniper victims, not DC.

and second, Bushmaster continued to do business with a dealer who consistently was irresponsible with the distribution of their products. if the above mentioned car dealer has repeatedly sold cars to unlicensed individuals, who use those vehicles for illegal purposes, and GM is aware of this trend, and continues to supply him with vehicles, THEN, I can nail GM for being irresponsible.

In the Virginia sniper case, the dealer who sold the weapon to Mohammed had been cited repeatedly for failure to maintain his stock in a safe and responsible manner. Bushmaster continued to supply him with guns, knowing full well that some of those weapons were 'vanishing' whatever happened to some personal responsiblity?

[madddog]

67. Then

the BATF should have yanked his FFL, plain and simple...that's their JOB. Do you think GM keeps tabs on every friggin' dealer in the country? As long as they move product, I'm sure they're not worried about all the gold drenched 20 somethings that come into the dealer and pay cash for an Escalade.

[northzax]

69. believe me, GM knows exactly where their product goes

they know exactly who is buying it, whether they're paying cash, visa, amex or a loan. theyknow it all. and if a dealer couldn't produce bills of sale for twenty hummers, they wouldn't get any more.

[madddog]

73. and

FFLs are SUPPOSED to have records, which are required by the BATF...so once again, the laws/regulations are on the books, but not properly enforced. Looks like the ATF shoulda been a *little* more vigilant. Once again, why is that Bushmaster's fault? So what's one more regulation gonna do? Nothing.

[northzax]

77. I never said 'one more'

I said 'only one' I want only one regulation. you can read it above. just one. shed the ten thousand laws on the books and replace them with one. I am still waiting for your comments on it.

[madddog]

80. Okay...

I'm not in favor of gun registration, period, on constitional grounds. I also don't believe it will accomplish what you think it will in terms of preventing gun crime.

[northzax]

83. and I do not believe

that the consitution bars gun regulation. so there you go.

[madddog]

95. aye,

as Frank said, "the crux of the buscuit is the apostrophe". I don't think the 2nd amendment allows for regulation, as it constitutes an "infringement".

And when is enough regulation enough? Who decides? You have a much more sedate approach to some folks, but the question always boils down to who's gonna be that final arbiter? Wayne LaPierre? Sarah Brady? And you know as well as I do you'll never appease the folks who want to see guns banned and confiscated.

Look at it this way...just as some folks have said we've started on a slippery slope with the banning of partial birth abortions, registration is the same slippery slope for gun owners.

Now, you can see how conflicted I am...I'm very pro choice, and very pro gun. Go figure lol.

[CarinKaryn]

112. maddog, you are brand new to DU...

supporting the repugnent view on "guns for all" and hinting at racist remarks - and don't tell me you're not.

Just making an observation that a clear picture of you is being formed by your comments. Welcome to DU :hi:

[madddog]

56. No...

How is registration going to prevent crime, or save lives? Criminals don't buy their guns legally now, how is that gonna change under registration? I have this same argument with my boss all the time...he can't point to one imperical study that says that registration will have a significant impact on crime. And in this specific case, supposed the gun was registered, and he wasn't demented last year...it just happened over the last few months. Who monitors that? Do we have to come in every 6 mos and demonstrate competency? Who judges the point at which he becomes a risk, barring some very intrusive government monitoring?

Here's an anology...teenage hooligans are terrorizing your town, driving down the road at 90, so the town council passes a law lowering the speed limint to 20 instead of 25. WTF is that gonna accomplish? Now I suppose they could just ban cars, but that would impact people who use their cars legally.

To me, "sensible" laws punsih criminals, and get THEM off the streets. The guns are just a tool of the trade. If you look at the rap sheets of most people who commit murder, it wouldn't be their first violent criminal act. What are violent criminals doing back on the street? Well, you know, Johnny didn't have a daddy growing up, so he's not responsible for his actions...it was SOCIETY made him cap his 2 rival drug dealers...you've heard it before.

Hey wait...it just came to me...let's register CRIMINALS hehehe. Oh, sorry, couldn't resist.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

66. There are so many paranoid delusionals that have bought into

the RW NRA claims and cooked figures that arguing with them is as effective as arguing with a paranoid delusional that thinks his toothpaste has been poisoned so he won't brush his teeth.

They love to make it sound as if there are violent evildoers lurking around every corner waiting to kill, rob or rape while in all actuality, it's far more likely that someone will be killed by a person they already know or (even more likely) a family member. The pro-gunners are taking the Bushco tact at progressing their cause: Instill fear. It's a great motivator.

I have existed for over half a century without having to use a gun to defend "me or mine." And in that half-century have not even met anyone that has had to use a gun in civil society (military not included) for defense. I've lived in large metro areas as well as rural areas. The dog just does not hunt. The only thing I can figure out is that it seems to be a socio-economic instilled psychosis on a mass scale. Whether caused by poor parenting or lead in their water, it's there and it's rampant.

[madddog]

70. No,

there are too many people who buy into that outright deceitful "43 times more likely to" nonsense spouted by the Brady folks to make an informed decision. BTW, in order to get to that figure, they had to raise the age of "children" to 22, and include suicides and gang/drug related shootings.

I'm glad you never had to defend yourself...but it only takes once. Most people lead a pretty sheltered life up until the day it happens to them. And if you CHOOSE not to provide for your own safety, cool, that's up to you. I prefer to take a different tack, and I'm not suggesting what's right for me is right for you. I happen to live in a state that agrees with me, and at least 100,000 other Virginians have concealed carry permits.

As for evildoers, let me drop you off at the corner of 14th and T tonight as see how things for you lol.

One statistic that people who are against guns never talk about is the FBI one that cites 1.5 MILLION defensive uses of firearms per year in the US. In all but a handful of those cases, the weapon is not discharged. So, there are some people in this country who see things differently. Now, you'll NEVER hear about these kinds of situations in the papers.

[northzax]

72. 14th and T?

hey wait a minute, my girlfriend lives at 13th and S, what are you implying? and what's wrong with St. X, anyway?

PS (on edit) I'm still waiting for your substantive comments on my proposal for regulation up above. or can I assume by your silence that you have nothing to say?

[madddog]

76. now now...

you know what happens when you assume...

I thought I addressed this...so many posts, I can't keep track of them. You haven't made a compelling case WHY we need registration...what do you think it will accomplish? My solution...lets enforce the 20K plus gun laws we already have for the next 10 years, let's lock up violent criminals for very long terms away from their friends and families, and then we can talk.

BTW, the only person I know who was ever shot was an old bass player buddy of mine...about 25 years ago, he seemed to think going to 14th st. to score some smack was a good idea...2 in the head disavowed him of that.

[northzax]

81. ok, I'll try again (will you read this one?)

registration and licensing is accompanied by education (edumacation, maybe?) I would wager, although I don't have the stats in front of me, that people who take gun safety classes are much less likely to accidently kill someone. it would follow to reason. people who take driving lessons are less likely to kill someone, people who take flying lessons are less likely to kill someone, people who take boating lessons are less likely to kill someone. heck, people who went to Med School are less likely to kill someone during surgery than I am. Since the person who is accidentaly injured is often NOT the person who owns the weapon (although that certainly does happen) those people have a right to the additional safety provided by education and of gun owners.

I have never said (and you can search this entire database if you'd like) that I want a restriction on what firearms can be owned. I don't want more laws, I want one, simple law, to replaced the labryntine laws already on the books. You, apparently, are ok with the ten thousand laws already on the books.

I repeat, this will not stop all criminal activity. Having a driver's license won't stop you from driving drunk. But the education you received while getting that license may inform you of the risks of driving drunk so you will choose not to take that risk. what it will reduce is the likelihood of an individual being killed by accident with a weapon.

requiring a driver's license doesn't stop accidents, but it does reduce them. requiring pilot's licenses doesn't eliminate someone hijakcing a plane, but it rediecs the number of planes that crash into my building on accident.

[slackmaster]

85. Thank you for presenting a reasonable argument in a civil manner

:toast:

[northzax]

92. thanks. think I'll get an answer?

:toast:

[madddog]

93. sorry

I answered you in another thread...too much going on around here lol. The short answer is "no".

[northzax]

96. I've never seen you in another thread

so I guess I missed it.

[madddog]

98. in this dicussion...

somewhere here...maybe I *thought* I was answering you...I still haven't quite figured out how these threads go....hang tight.

[madddog]

100. damn...

can't find it...but here you go...I'm against registration on constitutional grounds; moreover, I just dont' think it will do anything to address your concerns...especially regarding the criminal use/misuse of firearms.

[northzax]

111. and yet you specifically say in post 97

that you are in favour of mandatory firearm training. So you agree that training will serve some purpose. seems like yo uagree with me, but can't quite let go of your misreading of the second amendment. don't worry, you'll come around.

[madddog]

103. see my post "damn" a few lines down.

[northzax]

59. and while I'm at it

my grandfather (let's pretend he's not blind, if he could get a license while blind, we've got bigger issues) would have to demonstate, through a testing process, that he was lucid enough to get a license. He would have to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of a person without a financial stake in him getting that license.

now if he wantsa firearm, he doesn't need that license in the first place, and the person who is forced to make the decision aobut his lucidity has a financial stake in that decision. almost every gun dealer in the US is a responsible businessperson, and will turn down a sale to an innapropriate purchaser, but we are forcing them to make that decision. The man (or woman) behind the counter has to make the choice between taking those hundred dollar bills, and making a profit on the sale, or being safe and saying 'no.'

we don't permit people with a financial interest in a transaction to be the overseers of those transactions, that forces them into choosing between their own personal self interest and the communal best interest, it is too esay for temptation to govern their actions.

[madddog]

63. Well,

I'm not an FFL, but my guess is there not SUPPOSED to sell firearms to obviously deranged people. It would probably be easy to find out, but that's my guess. FFLs have the right to refuse to sell to ANYONE, if I'm not mistaken; the rules that govern what they can and can't do is rather long, and the ATF usually takes their job seriously.

We could go on an on debating all of these potential scenarios in this case, but you still can't prove this wouldn't have happened under registration. We have to accept on faith sometimes, that people will behave responsibly. I can get a driver's license, but that certainly doesn't guarantee I won't speed or drink and drive. Until Minority Report becomes reality, though, I can't be held responsible for it until I DO it.

[northzax]

65. exactly.

you can still choose to break the law driving drunk. you still have refrained from commenting on my proposed regulations above. Yes, it will not stop every tragedy, but then again, nothing can stop every tragedy. The fact remains that statistically you are much more likely to be killed by a gun owned by someone you know than by a stranger. What;s wrong with mandating gun safety classes for everyone who owns a gun? what, exactly, will that hurt?

[NewzJunkE]

71. Give it up 'dog ...

north wants to MANDATE, REGULATE, RESISTRATE everything! And when something bad happens, find someone/something to blame and SUE.

Some just don't get it that we live in an imperfect world.

[madddog]

74. hehehe

I know...I'm just a stubborn Irishman, and a glutton for punishment to boot.

[northzax]

75. yup, that's exactly right

I want every item deisgned to be a deadly weapon in the hands only of people who know how to use it, and are familiar with the risks inherent in it's use. I want th edirver in the next lane to have demonstrated to someone that he knows how to safely drive a car. I want the pilot of the next plane over to have demonstrated that she can safely fly a plane. I want my next door neighbor to have demonstrated that he knows how to safely shoot a gun. Not for his safety, or her safety, but for my own safety. sorry, I've got this thing about not getting into car accidents, plane crashes or getting shot. my bad.

[madddog]

78. One trip

around the beltway should disavow you of the fact that ANYONE on the road has a clue what they're doing lol, registration or not.

[northzax]

82. so you are in fvour of abolishing licensing

for automobiles?

[madddog]

91. no

but then I don't have a constitutional right to drive. It still always comes back to that. You're not gonna get me THAT easy lol. I would always say that the 20,000 plus gun laws are infringement enough, thank you very much.

If the goal of the Brady folks and others were REALLY to reduce gun violence, then they'd come up with a more sensible approach...but one trip to their website, and you just know what their agenda is.

You will never get rid of accidental shootings, which are really negligent, since guns don't discharge themselves, any more than you can get rid of boating accidents, for example. As long as there are guns, some dumbass is gonna do something stupid, just like as long as there are _________, someone is gonna do something stupid with it. The fact that people use a gun criminally is all the more important, let's go after the criminals. I have no problem with that, and I would venture to bet most gun owners don't either.


Why should I not be able to shoot a service rifle match with an AR15? I'M not doing anything illegal. Why shouldn't I be able to buy as many guns as I want, just because I WANT to, instead of only 1 handgun a month, like here in VA? (Nevermind that I can't afford to lol). Ultimately, you're (not you personally) pre-supposing some sort of impending criminal activity on my part, and trying to regulate against it.

[northzax]

94. again

as long as you demonstate to your local jursdiction's satisfaction that you can safely operate a gun, you can buy a gun a day, for all I care. You can carry an AR-15 in the shower, if it makes you happy.

registration and licensing will reduce gun violence, just as registration and licensing reduces automobile accidents. by asking you to get a driver's license, I am not implying you will drive unsafely, I'm teaching you how to drive safely. you can then make the choice not to, if you want. Anyone who can safely demonstrate the use of a weapon can join the well regulated militia and buy all the guns his little heart desires.

[madddog]

97. I got a MUCH better idea

Mandatory firearms safety training for every man, woman, and child in the country, not as a a prerequisite to registration, but becuase it makes sense lol. How many guns do we have in this country? 200 MILLION? Anwyway, we could teach it in every grade 1-12, so that by the time a person reaches the legal age to own a gun, he/she will have more than enough training.

[NewzJunkE]

87. Say what?

" every item deisgned to be a deadly weapon in the hands only of people who know how to use it, and are familiar with the risks inherent in it's use." I didn't know cars and airplanes were DESIGNED to be a deadly weapon. What 'bout bicycles? Does a baseball bat fall in this group too? Will we need to register, regulate and train folks to use them 'properly'. We can't keep everyone safe all the time. That's why we have Darwin Award winners.

[northzax]

90. I do believe you are missing the point

especially about the Darwin Awards. those are presented to people removed from the gene pool because of their own stupidity. I'm trying to reduce the number of people removed due to the stupdity of others.

It is quite difficult, I can imagine, to accidentaly kill someone with a baseball bat. probably possible, not not real easy (in fact, if you can cite one time when someone was accidnetally killed directly with a baseball bat (not a ball, a bat) I will make a donation to this fine website in your name.

[sangh0]

58. Too bad she didn't have a gun

Problem solved

[shamanstar]

79. "its the rage"

a movie about guns and how everyone has them. a man shoots his business partner and claims he was defending his home from a burglar. he did this when he found out his wife was having an affair. the movie goes through to all of the people and how they are threatening those around them with this line of "well it was an accident"

it was a very good movie!

[NewzJunkE]

89. possible question for John Law to ask ..

" Mr. Pritz, what was the last movie you watched? "..
jk jk

[kimchi]

101. What part of this don't you guys get?

You can buy a gun in some places in 10 minutes with no background check. This is BAD. That is one way the bad guys get guns.

If every gun was licensed, then if it was used in the commission of a crime, the last person it was licensed to gets busted. How easy is that? Buy the gun, register the gun, and don't sell it to a criminal. Sign over the registration card (kinda like a title) and then if he kills someone there is a record of where the gun went. How the hell is that taking away your right to have guns?

The government knows everything about you anyway. You think having an unregistered gun is going to keep you safe if they really want to come for your ass? Get a clue.

If you collect guns, or go hunting, or want to protect yourself, good for you. No one is asking you to give that up. Just register the gun so there is a trail in case something happens.

Why is this such a big hassle? Not theoretically, not constitutionally, I mean realistically. No one can deny that gun murders and accidents are a problem. It is also obvious that the laws on the books are not working, for whatever reason. What are you going to do about it?

[madddog]

104. enforce existing law

if you've admitted exising law hasen't solved the problem, then how can you expect MORE laws and regulations to accomplish anything?

Let's try a novel approach...incarcerate violent criminals...tack on extra time for using a gun...and then MAKE THEM SERVE THE WHOLE SENTENCE. The problem is gun CRIME, not legitimate gun use...and yes, Virginia, such a thing exists.

Well, you all peace out...I gotta go pick up my wife...if I'm late, she'll SHOOT me bwahahahaha.

[Bandit]

108. Republicans ran on that very issue

They control all branches of government. They Promised they would enforce all laws on the books. This 80 year old woman is dead. Republicans lie. I am coming to the conclusion that you are clueless. Guns do kill. Republicans do lie and so does the NRA. This 80 year old woman is dead. Wake Up. Sometimes you are not always right.

[slackmaster]

107. A few comments

You can buy a gun in some places in 10 minutes with no background check. This is BAD. That is one way the bad guys get guns.


True. In most places there is no way for a private individual (not a federal licensee) to check the background of another person to whom he or she wishes to sell a gun. The federal background check system (NICS) is available only to gun dealers.

If every gun was licensed, then if it was used in the commission of a crime, the last person it was licensed to gets busted.

That assumes that a gun and not a suspect has been captured. More often the police capture both, just the suspect, or neither.

Just register the gun so there is a trail in case something happens.

Thanks to the Gun Control Act of 1968 there already IS a trail of ownership: The initial purchaser of a Mystery Gun can always be traced from its serial number to the original buyer (BATF Form 4473). That individual can then be interviewed to determine the next owner, and so on.