Skip to main content

guns
Well, the shooting continues apace, so it's time for another installment of what's becoming a regular feature: the #GunFAIL series.

First, we'll catch up on some old business: stories that didn't make it into previous GunFAIL entries. (See GunFAIL III, Your next installment of GunFAIL News, The Week in GunFAIL News, and Today in GunFAIL News.)

For whatever reason (and there are many, some deeper than others), local news of shootings of any nature don't always break into the traditional media right away, and are sometimes even slower to appear in my online searches. Remember, for all the stories I'm turning up here, my only weapon in this is Google. In other words, all this stuff is happening in numbers great enough that anyone with a computer and Internet access could compile this information just as easily as I can. There's no special magic or professional investigative technique involved. And if there were, you can bet the numbers would likely be much higher.

At any rate, the result of relying on the sometimes slower-moving local media is that often, shooting stories don't get discovered until a week or two after they happened. And in order to give you a picture of the full volume of such stories, I simply add them to the next installment so you don't miss out on them, even though they may chronologically belong in a previous GunFAIL installment.

So with that, it's time to catch up on the news from the end of January, and begin with February. And it's already been a hell of a month.

Stick with us below the fold, for this week's outrageous GunFAIL news.

First, catching up on older news:

  1. BATON ROUGE, 1/20/13: Detectives have arrested 19-year-old Tyler Washington on a charge of negligent homicide in connection with a shooting that killed 18-year-old Trevon Wilson of Denham Springs, LA. According to the sheriff's office, Washington was carelessly operating a loaded firearm seconds before the gun went off. Officials say the shooting was accidental.
  2. CUMMING, GA, 1/22/13: A man accidentally shot himself in the hand while he was sleeping, according to a Cumming Police incident report. At 4 p.m. Jan. 22, a man told officers he was asleep when he grabbed a Springfield XD .45 pistol beside his bed and accidentally shot his hand.
  3. DAYTON, OH, 1/23/13: Police say a man who was shot and found hiding in a bath tub under a shower curtain likely was injured by a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Dayton Police said they found James O. Mabry II after a family argument, in which several shots were fired. Mabry told police he ran outside with his .22 caliber handgun to see who was shooting. He said that as he placed his gun in his waistband he accidentally discharged the weapon and shot himself in the leg.
  4. DURHAM, NC, 1/25/13: A 4-year-old boy found a gun and accidentally shot himself at a house on Brightfield Lane in the Ashefield Place subdivision Friday morning, according to police. Someone called 911 around 8:45 a.m. and reported that the child had fallen off a counter and suffered a head injury. Police said they later determined that the boy had found an unsecured gun and was injured when it discharged.
  5. CUYAHOGA FALLS, OH, 1/26/13: A resident with an itchy trigger finger inadvertently shot a .40 caliber bullet into his hand. According to the Cuyahoga Falls police report, the man was taking apart a handgun, and it went off.
  6. DENTON, TX, 1/30/13: The victim said she was trying to clean her .44-caliber Ruger Vaquero when she accidentally shot herself. Police spoke with her boyfriend and noted he was “extremely nervous and smelled of alcohol.” officers noticed blood splatter going at an angle upward from the bed area toward the linen closet. A sergeant noticed glass in the carpet and looked around to notice the door of the closet was missing. The boyfriend then admitted the door was in the bed of his truck. After the boyfriend was transported to the police station, he told police they talked, ate and began drinking before going into the bedroom. There, the boyfriend told the officer, they pulled the gun out and began doing “quick draws” on each other. According to the boyfriend, he didn’t know the gun was loaded and didn’t remember exactly what his girlfriend was doing with her hands but did tell officers he “accidentally shot her,” according to the affidavit.
  7. HERNDON, VA, 1/30/13: A subject was found to have accidentally discharged a weapon inside of their residence at 7:30 a.m. on Jan. 30 in the 2100 block of Highcourt Lane.
  8. LAKE STEVENS, WA, 1/30/13: A man, 28, was showing another, 21, how to clean and insert a magazine into a firearm, the blotter says. He handed the younger man the loaded magazine, which was inserted into the firearm. There was a round already in the chamber and the gun went off. The bullet went through the apartment wall into the next unit, where it lodged in the couch. One person was home next door at the time but was in another room.
  9. CRESCENT, IA, 1/31/13: Eighteen-year-old Kory Denton and two friends had been target shooting near a home on Holly Lane in Crescent around 6:20 p.m. and when they finished came inside the house. There they discovered that a cartridge was stuck in the gun, an SKS rifle which had been purchased that day by one of Denton’s friends. They tried using a screwdriver to dislodge it but the cartridge went off, striking Denton in the thigh.
  10. CROMWELL, CT, 1/31/13: A Middletown man in his 20s was shot in “the chin area” Thursday afternoon in what police say was an accidental shooting. Emzy Barker IV, 50, a resident of the unit, made a “frantic” call to police at 3:23 p.m. reporting that he had shot the victim. When police arrived at Barker’s home, they recovered a Colt Python .357 revolver that police said was used in the shooting.
  11. DICKINSON, ND, 1/31/13: Dickinson police are investigating the accidental shooting of a 3-year-old child at a mobile home court. Capt. Joe Cianni tells The Dickinson Press that the child took a bullet in an upper thigh Thursday afternoon and will be OK. Police say a handgun was unintentionally fired in the incident.
  12. MISSION, KS, 1/31/13: A 3-year-old boy was shot in a Mission apartment on Thursday afternoon, police said. Police said the child was shot in the arm and abdomen with a 9 mm handgun.  The child was rushed to a hospital and was in stable condition. Investigators said the boy's father was getting ready to clean the gun and left it unattended momentarily.
  13. LAYTON, UT, 1/31/13: A residential burglary Thursday has so far resulted in two arrests: one for the alleged burglar and one for the homeowner who allegedly fired two shots. Clare B. Niederhauser, 64, was booked into the Davis County Jail for investigation of two counts of misdemeanor reckless endangerment. Police say he fired two shots at people who were trying to break into his home. But by the time he fired the shots, the burglars had either surrendered or were trying to run away, said Layton Police Lt. Shawn Horton. "(The burglar) doesn't pose an immediate threat of taking his life or serious bodily injury, and that's what you have to have in order to use deadly force," Horton said.

And now, the past week's pure GunFAIL news:
  1. ROCK CREEK, OR, 2/01/13: A 25-year-old Rock Creek man accidentally shot himself in the finger this afternoon, according to the Washington County Sheriff's Office. The man told deputies he purchased a new gun Thursday, said Sgt. Bob Ray, a sheriff's office spokesman. The man took the gun apart Friday at a residence in the 3800 block of Northwest Chemult Place. When he was reassembling the gun, the weapon reportedly went off. He shot the tip of his finger, Ray said.
  2. CLEBURNE, TX, 2/01/13: Cleburne police say a five-year-old girl is in stable condition after being shot in the abdomen on Friday evening. Investigators said the girl suffered a wound to her abdomen, and that the incident appears to be the result of an accident. Update: Seems dad had just bought himself a new gun. Loading it for the first time, he accidentally shot his daughter.
  3. GREENVILLE, SC, 2/01/13: The death of a 3-year-old Greenville boy who was shot in the head Friday night has been ruled an accident, Greenville County deputy coroner Jeff Fowler said this morning. Update: Apparently, he found a pink gun, and thought it was a toy.
  4. LICKING TOWNSHIP, OH, 2/02/13: One person died in what was described as an accidental shooting Saturday night in an apartment just south of Heath. James Ballman, 19, last known address 3300 Refugee Road, Hebron, was killed by a single gunshot wound, said Detective Captain David Starling, of the Licking County Sheriff’s Office. The bullet was fired by one of four other people present at the time, Starling said. Starling said Ballman and the four others had all been handling the gun prior to the shooting. “They were over-handling the gun,” Starling said.
  5. LAKE WALES, FL, 2/02/13: Upon his arrival, around 6:50 p.m., the victim opened up the rear door to their pickup truck and attempted to place her rifle into the vehicle (the husband was still in the driver’s seat behind the wheel). Unfortunately, the barrel of the rifle was aimed towards the victim as she attempted to place it into the vehicle. According to the husband, and preliminary investigation by PCSO detectives confirms, as she placed the rifle into the truck, the rifle went off and the bullet struck the victim in her right leg, just underneath her pelvis, which caused an enormous amount of blood loss. EMS and the Sheriff’s Office arrived on scene but the victim succumbed to her wound.
  6. OVID TOWNSHIP, MI, 2/02/13: A teenage girl died Saturday after her 14-year-old brother accidentally shot her with a shotgun, according to authorities. The 13-year-old girl's brother was handling the gun about 4 p.m. at their home when he accidentally discharged it.
  7. RIVERSIDE, MO, 2/03/13: A 22-year-old man who was shot Sunday evening at a Riverside home has died, police said this morning. The shooting occurred at 8:30 p.m. in the 4800 block of Homestead Road. Josh Anderson, a Riverside resident, was taken to a hospital, where he later died. Police continue to investigate the incident but they said they believe the shooting was accidental.
  8. MACON, GA, 2/03/13: A 19-year-old Westside High School student was shot in the leg early Sunday morning when a gun accidentally discharged at his home on Perry Avenue. 24-year-old Joshua Isaiah Milner, of Lynmore Avenue, told police he grabbed his gun from the top of a dresser and put his finger on the trigger. The gun went off as he shook hands with his cousin, Shicobe Milner. Joshua Milner told police he thought the chamber was empty. The elder Milner took his cousin to the Medical Center of Central Georgia for treatment.
  9. LEXINGTON, NE, 2/03/13: Police Chief Tracy Wolf says a 25-year-old man was cleaning a handgun but, failed to fully and properly unload it. The .45 cal weapon discharged sending a bullet through his leg.
  10. GRANTVILLE, PA, 2/04/13: A man was taken to the hospital Monday evening after he accidentally shot himself in the thigh at a home in Grantville, according to Pennsylvania State Police. The victim, 24-year-old Kevin Sheibe, is in town from Illinois visiting a friend, Hicks said. Sheibe was attempting to clean his friend's Smith & Wesson handgun when the gun went off, injuring Sheibe in the left thigh, Hicks added. "He was cleaning the weapon and he didn’t realize there was a round in the chamber when his finger squeezed the trigger," said Trooper Robert Hicks, a state police spokesman.
  11. SPENCER, OK, 2/04/13: An Oklahoma County Sheriff's deputy suffered an accidental gunshot wound at a metro gun range on Monday. Spencer Police Chief Virgil Green said the incident happened at the Oklahoma County Gun Range at 4001 North Air Depot Boulevard. The deputy was shot in the lower extremities, possibly a foot or leg, an Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office spokesman said. The sheriff's office was doing some routine training when two deputies went inside a classroom. At some point, sheriff's officials said, one of the deputies checked his weapon and it discharged.
  12. WOODBURY, NJ, 2/05/13: Authorities say a Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office detective was wounded Tuesday afternoon when a weapon was accidentally dischargednear the criminal justice center in Woodbury.
  13. PUNKIN CENTER, CO, 2/05/13: Authorities say a Fort Carson soldier is recovering after he was wounded in an accidental shooting at a home shooting range in eastern Colorado. Lincoln County sheriff's Capt. Clint Tweden said Tuesday 18-year-old Reid Potwin was shot in the leg when 21-year-old Zachary Clay's gun went off while he was trying to clean his weapon.
  14. HATFIELD TOWNSHIP, PA, 2/05/13: An Upper Gwynedd police sergeant was injured Tuesday when he accidentally shot himself in an ankle at a Hatfield police shooting range. Sgt. Stephen Gillen, a 23-year veteran of the force, was training when he tried to draw a handgun from an ankle holster when the gun accidentally discharged. Range supervisors and two other officers were on the scene at the time.
  15. CHILHOWIE, VA, 2/05/13: Saltville Police Officer Brian Morris, 25, was injured Tuesday morning when he fell at home while carrying his department handgun and accidentally shot himself in the arm. The accident happened just after Officer Morris got home from his shift, around 5:45 a.m., said Saltville Police Chief Rob Hall. “He was moving from one place to another in his home. He stumbled and fell,” said Hall. “He was carrying his weapon at the time.” “Officer Morris is a military veteran. He served in Iraq,” said Hall. “He was involved in explosive situations, you could say, and in the privacy of his own home he injured himself with his own weapon. It just points out that things can happen anywhere at anytime to anybody. When it comes to firearms, you can take nothing for granted.”
  16. LANCASTER, OH, 2/05/13: Police said Jason David Moore, 25, allegedly shot his girlfriend, Kali Sheumaker, 27, of Lancaster, Monday about 5:15 p.m. at their home, 1531 Amherst Place. A man who identified himself as Jason Moore called 911 after the incident and said he had shot Sheumaker after an argument, adding he hadn’t meant to and didn’t know the gun was loaded. He told a dispatcher he and Sheumaker had been arguing and he had pulled out a handgun he recently had bought and was playing with it. He said he pulled the trigger repeatedly but never expected it to go off. He also said on the call he had been in the military and knew how to handle a gun but didn’t think it was loaded.
  17. SHAWNEE COUNTY, KS, 2/05/13: A woman was taken to a Topeka hospital with an injury not considered to be life-threatening after she was wounded Tuesday afternoon in what police officers believe to be an accidental shooting. Cpl. Justin Roberts, of the Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office, said officers were called to 8321 N.W. First Street in western Shawnee County around 3:15 p.m. Tuesday. They found the victim, who was able to respond to questions, and a man believed to be in possession of a gun when it discharged.
  18. SAN ANTONIO, TX, 2/05/13: Five people were inside a car parked at the apartment complex when the woman in the driver's seat was shot in the lower back, San Antonio police said. According to an SAPD detective, one of the people inside the car, 18-year-old Trevor Mays, pulled out a gun and started handling it recklessly. The gun fired and hit the woman. The suspected shooter then ran into the apartment complex, police said. While police were trying to locate the shooter, the other people in the car gave officers a false description of the suspect, a detective said.
  19. ST. PETERSBURG, FL, 2/06/13: An employee with the U.S. Marshal's office sustained non-life threatening injuries from an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound Wednesday at a Pinellas County Sheriff's firing range. Deputies say a firearm was unintentionally discharged at the Sheriff's Office Range, 11700 34th St. N. in St. Petersburg. Officials are not releasing the name of victim since due to their current work assignment with the U.S. Marshals. Around 9 a.m., Pinellas County deputies say members of the U.S. Marshals were utilizing the range for various shooting exercises when the employee suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the upper leg. The employee was treated at the scene and hospitalized with non-life threatening injuries. An investigation is ongoing.
  20. NORTH CHARLESTON, SC, 2/06/13: North Charleston police now say the man injured in a shooting at a hotel Wednesday accidentally shot himself and also had meth. 34-year-old Shawn Corey Walsh was charged with filing a false report and possession of a methamphetamine. Walsh told police he was walking near his hotel room, when he was approached by a man who asked him for a light for a cigarette. Walsh told police he went into his room to get the lighter and saw the suspect standing in front of his room. Walsh said the suspect pushed him back into the room and pulled out a gun, and a struggle ensued in which the suspect tried to grab the gun. Walsh was shot in the right hand. Police arrested him after they determined he made the story up.
  21. DENISON, TX, 2/06/13: A shooting that is believed to be accidental sent one man to the hospital, after he apparently shot himself with his own gun inside his truck. The man was shot in the thigh, according to police Sgt. Paul Neumann. Witnesses say the man in his 30's lives in the area, but had been staying at the motel. He was in his white pickup truck when the gun went off.
  22. GRANITEVILLE, SC, 2/06/13: A Graniteville man reportedly shot himself in the right ring finger while he was putting his gun away in his home on Wednesday.
  23. NAMPA, ID, 2/06/13: Police in Nampa say a man who confronted a stranger in the backyard of a friend's house was stabbed and then shot in the leg with his own gun before the attacker ran away. Witnesses told police the victim saw a man he didn't know in his friend's backyard and went outside to confront him. They fought and the victim was stabbed. Police say the victim's gun went off during the struggle, but it isn't clear who fired it.
  24. CHILLICOTHE, MO, 2/06/13: A 23-year-old woman is hospitalized after accidentally shooting herself Wednesday evening in the 600 block of Webster Street. Chillicothe Police were dispatched to Hedrick Medical Center's emergency room after receiving the report of a female subject with a gunshot wound. According to the report, the woman sat down in the driver's seat of a pickup truck, while it was parked in the 600 block of Webster Street. She then scooted herself toward the middle of the truck and picked up a 9 mm handgun that was lying on the seat, which she believed was unloaded. As she placed the gun on her lap, she accidently shot herself in her groin area, the report stated.
  25. LAS CRUCES, NM, 2/07/13: Las Cruces Police are investigating what appears to be an accidental shooting that occurred early Thursday afternoon inside a business on east Lohman Avenue. Police report that around 12:30 p.m. an 18-year-old employee of Pool Tech Pools and Spas, at 2331 E. Lohman Ave., was inside the store handling a .40-caliber handgun when the weapon appears to have accidentally discharged. The man was struck in his upper-right thigh. The man was treated at the scene by fellow employees and first responders prior to being airlifted to University Medical Center of El Paso. No other injuries were reported.
  26. TORRANCE, CA, 2/07/13: Two women who were shot by Los Angeles police in Torrance early Thursday during a massive manhunt for an ex-LAPD officer were delivering newspapers, sources said. The women, shot in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue, were taken to area hospitals, Torrance police Lt. Devin Chase said. They were not identified. One was shot in the hand and the other in the back, according to Jesse Escochea, who captured video of the victims being treated. A second shooting, involving Torrance police officers, occurred about 5:45 a.m. at Flagler Lane and Beryl Street in Torrance. No injuries were reported in that incident. Chase said that in both instances police came across vehicles they thought were similar to the one Dorner is believed to be driving. Neither vehicle was Dorner's.
  27. CAPITOLA, CA, 2/07/13: Capitola Police said the man who was shot in the leg near the Capitola Wharf on Wednesday night accidentally shot himself. It happened on the 5000 block of Cliff Drive. Officers said the Santa Cruz man was on scene with another person. They said both of them did not cooperate in the investigation. The man was taken to a hospital and is expected to be ok.
  28. COLUMBUS, GA, 2/07/13: A Columbus police recruit was sent to the hospital this morning after accidentally being shot at the Columbus Police Department's firing range. Officers were preparing for a firearms training exercise when a male officer discharged his weapon, striking a recruit in the forehead. The man was not seriously injured.
  29. LANDER, WY, 2/07/13: Police responded to the 300 block of South First Street in Lander on the report of a 26-year-old man who had apparently accidentally shot himself in the foot while cleaning a .22 caliber gun. He was transported to Lander Regional Hospital for treatment of the wound. Carey said officers later received a call concerned for the man’s welfare after he had been released from the hospital. Officers made contact with man a second time and he was taken to LRH on a Title 25 admission for observation so as not to harm himself again.
  30. PRESIDIO CO., TX, date unknown: A Presidio County game warden responded to a nonfatal hunting accident at Penitas Ranch. When he arrived, the game warden learned that the hunter was trying to cross over a fence when his loaded shotgun fell from its rest and discharged, resulting in the injury.
  31. BEND, OR, 2/07/13: A Bend woman was cited on assault and reckless endangering charges Thursday after a loaded .22-caliber Derringer pistol fell out of her pocket during a visit to McDonald’s and it went off, striking her husband in the abdomen and seriously wounding him, police said.Richard Lee Cooper, 47, and wife Barbara Annette Masters, 48, were sitting in the restaurant’s dining area when Masters leaned forward and a the gun fell out of her pocket and hit the floor. The impact with the floor caused the gun to go off, with the bullet striking Cooper in the abdomen, he said.

Finally, that delicate category of GunFAIL news that includes suicides, domestic violence and the like:

  1. NEWARK, OH, 1/29/13: Police have arrested a man suspected of kidnapping and holding his girlfriend at gunpoint Tuesday. During the incident, the gun went off and a bullet was found later on the floorboard of a vehicle used during the abduction, according to the release.
  2. PEARISBURG, VA, 1/29/13: The mayor of a central Virginia town will remain behind bars as he faces charges of firing a gun and then putting it to the head of his wife during an argument. Special prosecutor Mike Fleenor told the court that Ould threatened to shoot his wife as she tried to leave the couple's home on Jan. 29.
  3. OTIS, OR, 1/30/13: Unattended death in Cherryhill Trailer Park, Otis. Complainant advised that her husband had shot himself. Subject is currently on the front porch of the location. Complainant advised the firearm is laying beside him.
  4. PORT ST. LUCIE, FL, 2/01/13: A 22-year-old who shot himself in the head Friday at an indoor shooting range in St. Lucie West has died, said Master Sgt. Frank Sabol, Port St. Lucie police spokesman.
  5. MURPHYS, CA, 2/02/13: Authorities say a man in the tiny Sierra Nevada community of Murphys has shot and killed his teenage son and daughter before killing himself.
  6. IRVING, TX, 2/03/13:  An Irving man walked his 5-year-old daughter to a neighbor on Sunday afternoon, then returned home where he killed his wife and fatally shot himself in an apartment murder/suicide, Irving police said Monday. The man left a note and family members were aware that the couple had been having marital problems, police said. Irving police responded to a report of a suspicious circumstance shortly before 1 p.m. Sunday in the 1800 block of Jordan Court.
  7. ALCOA, TN, 2/03/13: Financial pressure and domestic issues could have played into a double murder-suicide in Alcoa. The Daily Times reported 47-year-old Amos Louis Turbyfill Jr. is thought to have fatally shot his girlfriend and her teenage son and then killed himself. The victims were 39-year-old Stacy Lynn Wade and 18-year-old Joshua J. Demetri. Police said Demitri's body was found on a couch and the bodies of Turbyfill and Wade were found in a bed late Sunday with a gun between them.
  8. BROOKLYN, NY, 2/05/13:  A 63-year-old woman was killed Tuesday after her gun-toting brother blasted away at her and her daughter in Brooklyn, cops and residents said. The 70-year-old suspect, whom sources identified as William Thurman, was arguing with his sister and her 37-year-old daughter in an E. 25th St. apartment near Avenue D in East Flatbush when he pulled a gun and opened fire at 9:50 a.m., cops said. Police sources said Thurman snapped after his sister asked him to leave because he wasn’t paying his share of the rent.
  9. WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, PA, 2/05/13: A York County man shot and killed his terminally ill wife with a rifle late Tuesday night and then killed himself, according to state police. Police said that Sherman Brown, 85, used a .22 caliber rifle to kill Jeanette Brown, 84, who was terminally ill with cancer. An investigation revealed that her health was significantly deteriorarating, police said.
  10. COLUMBUS, GA, 2/05/13: A 38-year-old Army captain shot a 27-year-old woman and then turned the gun on himself Tuesday afternoon near an open storage unit at American Storage Rental Spaces, officials said.
  11. MARION, NC, 2/05/13: Authorities say a deadly shooting in McDowell County late Tuesday appears to be a murder suicide attempt. It left one person dead, and another in the hospital with life threatening injuries. Authorities believe 16-year-old Abraham Valdez shot and killed 18-year-old Daniel Escobar, then shot himself in the head.
  12. DENVER, CO, 2/06/13:  Two children and a woman were shot and killed Wednesday morning in a possible murder-suicide at a Denver home. A third child was rushed to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries sustained during the shooting incident, according to KDVR-TV. The child, who was seen by neighbors being wheeled out of the house on a stretcher, is currently listed in critical condition at Denver Health Medical Center. Authorities appeared to be zeroing in on the theory that the tragic incident was a murder-suicide involving the mother and her children, according to KDVR.
  13. LAKE WORTH, FL, 2/06/13: Detectives are investigating what appears to be a murder and suicide this afternoon in Lake Worth, the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office said. Deputies responded at about 12:30 p.m. to a welfare check in the 100 block of South Lake Side Drive. They found two men dead from what appears to be gunshot wounds, said Teri Barbera, sheriff’s spokeswoman.
  14. UTICA, NY, 2/06/13: Police might never know why 37-year-old Jerry McNair first apparently killed one of his girlfriends, before then turning the gun on himself in a West Utica apartment Wednesday.
  15. GREENSBORO, NC, 2/06/13: Two people found dead in their home died as a result of a murder-suicide, police said today. Police responding to a 911 call found Karla Betrice Aquillir Ramirez, 28, and her husband Roberto Armando Guillen, 59, inside the home. Police said Guillen fatally shot Ramirez, then shot himself.
  16. BELOIT, WI, 2/06/13:  Investigators in Rock County want to know what led a man to kill his neighbor in a barn near Beloit, and then shot himself. Sheriff Robert Spoden said today that 75-year-old Danial Bellard shot and killed a neighbor, 59-year-old Christine Gestrich.

Originally posted to David Waldman on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:11 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos and Shut Down the NRA.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Begging a pretty damned important question: (4+ / 0-)

    Which of those shootings would have been prevented by regulations that are currently being contemplated?

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:19:25 AM PST

      •  Might take a couple of them out. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BroadwayBaby1, FrankRose, BigOkie

        Betcha most of those folks would make it through a screening, though, including the rocket scientist who thought it was OK to shoot burglars  who had the good sense to be afraid of his gun.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:40:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I take it you want more and better regs (6+ / 0-)

        so that this sort of diary will be infinitely more difficult to put together .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:48:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know I'm going to hate myself (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hnichols, rbird, Jack Hare, shaharazade
          I take it you want more and better regs so that this sort of diary will be infinitely more difficult to put together .
          Huh?  

          Do I want more regs?  Absolutely.  

          •  You are going to hate yourself for (0+ / 0-)

            wanting more regs so that fewer people will get shot , wounded or killed ?  

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:25:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is why I'm going to hate myself (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kharma, shaharazade

              Engaging you in a substantive discussion is a waste of time.  Too much time is wasted on correcting your ridiculous strawmen and "jumping to conclusions" which no thinking person comes up with.  

              You are going to hate yourself for wanting more regs so that fewer people will get shot , wounded or killed ?  
              I'd ask how you came to this strawman but that would bring us full circle to "Engaging you" yada, yada, yada.  

              I'd say read the first paragraph in this post, but that would lead to more strawman questions.  Plus "Engaging you" yada, yada, yada" would probably the end result.  

              Do I want more regs?  Absolutely.

              Since I do believe a question should be answered if only for my own peace of mind, here goes:

              What part of "Absolutely" do you not understand?  This needed an explanation for you?  Or are you just looking to fight and make yourself relevant?  

              End of story.  Consider yourself ignored from here on end.  

        •  I want better regs, not sure about more. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, BigOkie

          What I really want is an economy and nation that doesn't leave children on the outside looking in when it comes to non-crime opportunities to do OK for themselves and have lives worth living.

          That would do more to reduce the violence than any gun regulations currently being proposed that might actually pass constitutional muster.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:14:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Its not an A or B situation . (6+ / 0-)

            Its a superadditive situation .
            If A alone is one
            and B alone is one
            A + B = 3 or more .

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:24:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then why are we spending so much time, effort (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BroadwayBaby1

              and political risk talking about guns?

              Time and effort is finite.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:26:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you not understand what I wrote ? (0+ / 0-)
                Time and effort is finite.
                That sure sounds like defeatist talk .
                Now why would you want to do that ?
                Are you foot dragging ?  

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:31:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It is an 'A' or 'B' question. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you want "an economy and nation that doesn't leave children on the outside looking in when it comes to non-crime opportunities to do OK for themselves and have lives worth living" then you need to focus on those policies, instead of an ineffective bill that won't pass, and will lose elections.

                  You have a choice. Gun Control is the wrong one for a myriad of reasons.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:40:12 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yup , defeatist . (4+ / 0-)

                    Can't be done ...
                    "is the wrong one"

                    Australia , England , Israel .
                    They all have done what we need to do .
                    They have moved way ahead of us ,
                    they are making us look like a cheap 3rd world country in comparison . Don't you think America can do what Australia , England and Israel have already done ?

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:55:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Finally something we agree on (0+ / 0-)

                      I temporarily suspended my "ignore".  

                    •  No. While trying to push for this, other things (0+ / 0-)

                      like improving the econ, reducing poverty, increasing social spending, can't be done.

                      "Australia, England"
                      If you enjoy being videotaped 24/7 & being a subject of a queen, then they are better suited for you.

                      I prefer the liberties of the USA.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:01:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Uh huh (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Blissing, teabaggerssuckbalz, koNko

                        But oddly, there's broad support across the country for gun regulation. There's no broad support for improving the economy (since people have been fooled into thinking that the deficit is the real problem), no broad support for reducing poverty (we HATE programs that target poverty in the US), no broad support for increased social spending (c.f. the first two).

                        So what you're saying is, we should stop doing the thing that we have broad support for right now, so that maybe somewhere down the road we can succeed in building up support for some other good things. When there's certainly no reason to choose to do one or the other, but if there was, we should probably take advantage of the opportunity afforded us by broad support to fix the one problem immediately, and then go on to others.

                        Please, just be honest: if you hate the idea of gun control because you think guns are great, say so. If you have some other reason for opposing it, say that. Arguing that by focusing on it we're neglecting all the other progressive ideals is transparent hogwash.

                        •  There is less support for gun control today (0+ / 0-)

                          than there was in 1994.

                          I disagree with the idea of gun control because I think innocent American's liberties shouldn't be taken. I oppose gun control for the same reason I oppose warrantless wiretaps.
                          Other reasons for opposing it is because I think time would be better spent reducing poverty & increasing opportunities.
                          Another reason I oppose it is because the AWB would be pointless, bare hands are used to murder twice as many people as all rifles combined. The rifles in the AWB would only be a fraction of 'all rifles combined'.
                          Another reason is because I want more and better Democrats & the last time the Dems pushed for the AWB it was a political disaster.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:47:16 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Congratulations: You've found an example that (0+ / 0-)

                      , on the surface at least, makes US society look safe and placid.

                      Your mention of Israel sent me running to the numbers, and I was shocked to find that Israel seems to have set up a society where it seems that guns are handed out to the most murderous citizens .

                      (note: all numbers thanks to Wikipedia, and however many grains of salt that may require)

                      At first blush, things look pretty rosy:

                      a homicide rate of .94 vs 3.6.

                      Looks pretty good.

                      But -- here's the weird one:

                      .073 guns per capita vs .89 guns per capita.

                      That's only about 1 person out of 14 with guns in Israel, vs a better than even chance that any random selected American will have a gun. While the numbes aren't broken out in a way to account for those who own multiple guns, it seems like Israeli gun owners are a whole lot more likely to kill their fellow citizens than American gun owners.

                      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                      by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:24:39 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But don't both... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...homicide rates include non-gun homicides?

                        If 3/4 of the homicides in the United States result from a firearm injury (not an unreasonable approximation for 2011) and all guns were removed from all hands and no one who would have murdered by a gun was then murdered by another method (such as a knife), our homicide rate would be about the same as Israel's.

                        One has to look at the number homicides in Israel and the United States that utilized firearms to reach the conclusion you did.

                    •  Responding to these people (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Laconic Lib, teabaggerssuckbalz

                      is real close to being a total waste of time--indycam.

                      They want more guns--- but fewer regulations.

                      And no matter what: DO NOT BLAME GUNS.

                       Also they prefer we first provide solutions for world hunger---world peace----global disarmement--what is the nature of man?----is there an afterlife?---is there a God?..........................you get the picture.

                      Then and only then---maybe---can we talk about the guns.

                      Maybe.

                      Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

                      by lyvwyr101 on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 01:39:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Realism is defeatist? (0+ / 0-)

                  It could as easily be read as,

                  "Let's get the low-hanging fruit (regs that can make a difference and have broad support) out of the way quickly, then get on to job next."

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:06:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  That's what I've said all along. (0+ / 0-)

              Thing is, the gun regulations that people are actually talk about will not make a very big dent in gun violence.

              Doesn't mean they aren't worth doing, only that they will leave the worst of the problem in place.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:29:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Making any progress (4+ / 0-)

                is better than making no progress .
                A journey of a thousand miles ...

                will not make a very big dent in gun violence.
                If you look at the forest , but if you look at the tree ...
                If the one person who isn't shot , wounded or killed is you ,
                should we say "not a big dent" ?

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:35:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, we should say not a big dent. (0+ / 0-)

                  Read the words, Luke:

                  Doesn't mean they aren't worth doing, only that they will leave the worst of the problem in place.
                  Maybe you should be asking yourself an important question:

                  Is this about making you feel good because, gosh-darn-it-all, you've done SOMETHING?

                  Or is it about recognizing a serious problem and wanting to address it?

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:03:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  80ish shot dead a day 300ish wounded ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Laconic Lib

                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Is this about making you feel good because, gosh-darn-it-all, you've done SOMETHING?
                    This is about reducing the number of killed and wounded daily .

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:11:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The regulations people talk about won't make (0+ / 0-)

                      much difference in those numbers.

                      They WILL make it harder for the Newtowns and Auroras to happen, but that's a different story.

                      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                      by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:26:07 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  At what number does it change for you from (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        myboo
                        won't make much difference
                        to maybe , makes enough of a difference ?

                        The public health approach does not push away small improvements , it looks to make many small improvements knowing that all the small improvements are improvements that are part of the overall improvement so desperately needed .

                        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                        by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:37:59 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You haven't been reading very carefully. (0+ / 0-)

                          At know point have I said reasonable regulation of firearms isn't worth doing, only that it won't make a big dent in the day to day killings that contribute the vast majority of dead children.

                          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                          by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:57:49 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

          •  That will take (0+ / 0-)
            What I really want is an economy and nation that doesn't leave children on the outside looking in when it comes to non-crime opportunities to do OK for themselves and have lives worth living.
            That will take a societal change.  

            As to constitutional muster, why should the Second Amendment be any different when it comes to restrictions?  

            Here's where elections have consequences.  I'm relying on part of the change coming from the Supreme Court openings and who Obama chooses to fill them.  I expect Obama to fill the possible openings with the right kind of candidates who will push the agenda Obama was reelected on.  

            Romney would have taken full advantage of the opportunity if he had them.  

            •  Supreme Court Justices... (0+ / 0-)

              ...are not supposed to "push agendas".

              Obviously, "agenda pushing" does happen on both sides because most people, including judges, have a hard time eliminating their personal biases so we end up with bad decisions on both sides (i.e., not adequately backed by the law or the Constitution). But it's not something to encourage, rather it's something to be actively discouraged.

              Personally, mostly because they are lifetime appointments to the "court of last resort", I think appointment to the SCOTUS should require an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the sitting Senators. This would likely result in more moderate justices who don't push agendas but are instead mostly interested in application of the law and Constitution -- regardless of the impact. If the impact is undesirable, legislation or amending the constitution can, and should, fix the underlying problem. Judges should be more like applied mathematicians than philosophers.

              Policy and "agendas" are a matter for legislation.

              What you propose is that the SCOTUS substitute themselves for the legislative role (and, I assume, you believe the same for all judges down the line should do the same). You must be pretty confident that Democrats will hold the Senate and the White House forever.

      •  And create a national gun regisry (6+ / 0-)

        My DailyKos diary explains this and provides a link to my petition on WhiteHouse.gov.

        Every little step increases gun safety in America.

        •  There is no gun control that has ever been passed (0+ / 0-)

          in the US that has been shown to reduce gun crime one iota.
          'Every little step' does nothing but lose elections for Dems.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:27:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And your solution is? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            The Story Teller
            'Every little step' does nothing but lose elections for Dems.
            If "every little step" loses elections for Democrats, maybe it's time to go big and see where it takes us.  If, as you believe, Democrats will lose, why not go for broke?  
          •  What? This is absolutely incorrect. (3+ / 0-)
            There is no gun control that has ever been passed in the US that has been shown to reduce gun crime one iota.
            I take it you're basing this off of NRA 'science'? Because even with the limited ability to study the problem (because the NRA has managed to cut off all funding), there are a number of obvious success stories. Just one example: usage of assault weapons in mass shootings declined dramatically during the years of the assault weapons ban. Which caused mass shootings to be less deadly. And since the expiration, they've come back, and mass shootings are more deadly again.

            Of course, this isn't 'proof', because it's just statistical. Just like the 'proof' that smoking causes cancer, just like the 'proof' that poor diet causes health problems, and so on. The only way that your statement is true is if you deny that statistical modeling is a valid method of study.

            And if you do that, then there is literally no way to know whether gun laws could possibly work. And no way to know whether anti-poverty programs could possibly work. (After all, if we use one, and a lot fewer people are poor, it might have just happened anyway by itself, right?) And no way to know whether anything we do has a measurable effect on anything.

            •  It is correct. Gun Control has never been shown to (0+ / 0-)

              reduce crime in the USA.

              A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

              In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.

               John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans. The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.  Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

              The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the AWB and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence,"

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:55:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "More guns, less crime" seems like an impartial (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Laconic Lib, Mathazar

                source. Makes sense to me.

                I'm going to go check up on President Obama in "Socialist Nazi Kenyan Marxist Quarterly."

                When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                by PhillyJeff on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:16:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Center for Disease Control, USDOJ are there (0+ / 0-)

                  also if you don't like the title of John Lott's researched book.
                  The conclusion of the evidence led to the title, not vise versa.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:19:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Don't know. (46+ / 0-)

      But the question I set out to answer with this series was, "How much safer would we be if the answer really was 'more guns,' or that we should arm teachers, etc.?"

      Yours is an important question, but you'd need different data for that one.

      Since there's a powerful and wealthy lobby pushing for the idea that the answer is more guns, I thought I should look at how many people are accidentally being wounded or killed by the ones we already have, and see if we thought it would be wise to have more of them.

      •  It's an unfair question, I know. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock, marsanges

        We've focused on things that will help.
        Things that will certainly help prevent horrible events like Newtown and Aurora.

        But...

        That's not most of the shootings.
        Most shootings don't happen with assault weapons or use large magazines.

        And the irony of your gunfail listing (though amusing and a good reminder that guns are dangerous things not to be treated lightly and sure as hell not to be handled while drunk) is that:

        1. Most (if not all) of the weapons involved would still be legal after most proposed regulations

        2. Most (if not all) of the shooters would still be able to buy guns

        3. The case of the over-zealous home protector actually points to the value of guns for self-defense: the burglars gave up on seeing the gun.  Crooks aren't generally rocket-scientists, but the "victim" was the idiot this time around.

        Another good question that I don't know how to answer:

        What if we can actually put a dent in the ability of truly bad actors to get their hands on guns and use them?

        Then all the gun fail examples make a lot of sense because I'd expect fewer people to feel the need for guns to defend themselves if they aren't worried about getting shot themselves.

        Might see a few more German Shepherds, Dobermans, etc in homes, but fewer guns.

        Personally, I prefer the dogs.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:39:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't see that as an irony of the listing. (7+ / 0-)

          You might if you take a guess about what my policy positions on gun control might be, though.

        •  What's important to remember (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gof

          is that what has been proposed is not the final proposal.  It is actually just the beginning of solving the problem.  

          What has been proposed is the low-hanging fruit... which won't erase most current gun death and wounding.   But it isn't supposed to.  That's a long-term goal, and there are no quick fixes for it.  

          That said, what's been proposed is far from useless.  It would:

          a) Reduce gun death in the future by maybe a few hundred a year... which is still progress.  A baby step is still a step in the right direction.  Remember: There are no quick fixes. Only a thousand baby steps, which we must take one at a time.

          b) Test whether keeping guns out of the wrong people's hands can work.  We have a problem with our guns, and there are two solutions to it--- deal with the people, or deal with the guns. The pro-gun folks insist on dealing with the people.  The logic is, if we just got guns out of their hands, the rest of us could keep ours.  That's why they focus on "bad guys" and "criminals" who are "out there" waiting to get us.  As this series of diaries shows (along with crime data), most gun death and injury comes not from "bad guys out there" but the seemingly good guys we know, love, and trust.  I don't think you can suss out the bad from the good very effectively.  But we'll give it a shot, and that's what these proposals attempt to do.

          c) Show that when we stand together we can overpower the gun lobby.  This last one is the most important.  The fact that these proposals are even "controversial" is because of the political power of the gun lobby.  We've already overcome their power to squelch discussion of our nation's problem with its guns.  Now we need to overcome their political power, and it starts with small steps.  The small steps are all we can do until we break the NRA's aura of invincibility.  Since they've vehemently opposed any regulatory solution to our nation's gun problem, even the slightest reform will be a major victory.    

          Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

          by nominalize on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:59:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  80 percent of gun homicides (4+ / 0-)

            Are caused by "second-hand" guns-- guns sold, pawned, given away, lent, left unsecured, lost, etc.

            Contrary to your claim, gun homicides can be DRASTICALLY reduced if the original purchaser (say, he who purchases after January 1, 2014) understands he will be responsible for ITS USE DURING ITS ENTIRE EXISTENCE-- he will be prosecuted, sued, named in the media; he will risk his life's savings, his home, his freedom, his standing in the community if anyone from a convicted felon to a four-year-old lays hands on the weapon and causes damage.

            This would end the second-hand market for guns, and it would make NRA members glue their weapons to their hands rather than treat them like another household appliance.

            Aborticentrism-- the closer life gets to being your responsibility, the less sacred it becomes

            by cgregor on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:39:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Umm....there is this thing called mens rea (0+ / 0-)

              And it matters a lot when you are talking about criminal offenses.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:49:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Just like... (0+ / 0-)

              ...your kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, and lawn darts?

              How about if your mobile phone is stolen and before you realize it, it's used in the commission of a crime? Should you be responsible for the crime - perhaps executed if it was used in the commission of a murder?

              Question: If the person using your stolen cell phone to commit a crime received an enhanced sentence (perhaps a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole) because of their prior convictions, should you also get the enhanced sentence or the more lenient "first time offender" variant? (I would think the enhanced one as you were responsible for your cell phone falling into the hands of a repeat offender and could have instead insured that it was stolen by less dangerous person with a bit more caution on your part).

              Sounds like a great idea.

            •   What you describe isn't on the table (0+ / 0-)

              Although it might be in the future. Well, probably not...  it's much broader than purposeful straw man purchases.  See dinotrac's comment... it's far too broad, even.  

              Still, your idea tries to fix the people part of the problem, instead of the guns.  I'm skeptical.

              Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

              by nominalize on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:54:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  With all the accidental shootings (4+ / 0-)

        while cleaning...I'm beginning to wonder if all the bluster is to really disguise the fact that these gun manufacturers can't seem to make a reliable gun.

        How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

        by athenap on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:42:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The gun is way more reliable than the people. (7+ / 0-)

          The gun will reliably shoot.  People will reliably fuck up.  

          Maybe we should limit 1 bullet to a chamber, because there are so many accidental shootings.  That way you would have to pull the trigger a bunch of times and never know when it will actually shoot.  

          Get the gun reliability more in line with the human reliability.

          guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

          by 88kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:49:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bullet? Round? Chamber? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            88kathy

            Right off hand, I can't think of a single common firearm that allows more than one round, let alone more than one bullet, in the chamber at a time. It just doesn't make sense - how could two rounds be in the chamber at the same time, they wouldn't fit.

            Obviously, some guns (most commonly, revolvers) have multiple chambers, but each can only hold one instance of the round for which it was designed.

            I suppose (but have not checked) that maybe one could cram three .22LR rounds into a chamber designed for a .50 BMG round :) But it wouldn't work very well and would likely be pretty safe since even if the firing pin managed to result in all three firing at the same time (.22LR rounds are rimfires so maybe some weird arrangement could result in this), the bullets would likely leave the barrel at a non-lethal velocity due to interference and lack of a gas seal in the barrel way over sized for their caliber.

            •  I am thinking about the old timey Russian Roulette (0+ / 0-)

              more or less joking around, what if guns were as unreliable as people.  People are not consistently aware they have a gun in their pocket.  See 'accidents' above.

              What if guns didn't consistently go off.  What if you never knew when you pulled the trigger if it would fire or not.

              People obviously have so many accidents they have no idea.  They accidentally shoot things all the time.  What if the gun was inconsistent.  

              People wouldn't make the mistake of knowing.  They would have to pay attention to get the gun to go off.  Or maybe it would discharge the first time they pulled the trigger. Scare the hell out of them.

              guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

              by 88kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:26:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  While these people (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VA Breeze, Bisbonian, Catsmeat, Blissing

          are diligent cleaners of their weapons it seems they never learned what the first step in cleaning must be - empty the gun.

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

          by lcbo on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:05:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  more likely (5+ / 0-)

          most of these 'cleaning' accidents are people trying to show off- quick draws,spinning the gun on trigger finger,that kind of dumb.

      •  It might be helpful if you put that question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        somewhere in your diary, or maybe I missed it, but just reading through I saw that question nowhere.

        In reading I assumed you like listing all the gun accidents for people to read. Struck me kinda weird.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:48:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And if more guns made us safer two major tragedies (9+ / 0-)

        wouldn't have happened recently, one at a firing range where a PTSD-suffering vet killed an ex-SEAL (who was perhaps the best rifleman in the world) and another vet; the other is  theongoing saga of the fired LAPD Lt(also a vet) who has been on a rampage for the last week and whom the entire LAPD and outlying police departments, with sidearm and rifle firepower greater than the armies of many of the planet's nation states, have been unable to stop.

        So much for the

        "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
        meme.  

        No, the way to stop this shit is with a civilized society.  I know, I know; not gonna happen, so more guns!

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

        by nailbender on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:06:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  All of them (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, Miggles, mungley, Mathazar

      By contributing to a culture and society with concern for and awareness of gun violence.

      Gun's don't kill people... Woops!

      Must have lost his head for a minute there.

      "I didn't know it was loaded".

      Neither did the 4 year old.

      Don't you know gun's aren't dangerous? Only machine guns are. And I not the one's that only look like machine guns but aren't.

      That .22 Deringer, ha, a pea shooter.

      What's the narrative? Do we believe their presence is a threat or not?

      •  To be technical, guns don't usually kill people (0+ / 0-)

        bullets kill people . . . unless someone hits you with a gun or throws it at you or something.

        To be fair, the NRA also doesn't want any checks on people amassing huge amounts of ammunition either.

        When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

        by PhillyJeff on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:18:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Answering with another question (19+ / 0-)

      Is there any evidence that guns make us safer?

      You get to hear about people who defended their homes against invaders. The NRA loves those.

      Here's the response ... the literally dozens of counterexamples.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:50:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, right in that list of gun fails. (0+ / 0-)

        The idiot homeowner who shot even when the burglars gave up.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:19:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  For reference... (0+ / 0-)

        ...here's a link to an NRA-ILA list (with cites to the sources in almost all cases from the past three decades at least) going back about 55 years.

        This is, of course, not an exhaustive list, even of those cases that are reported to police. One thing that's interesting is the number of these cases where the firearm is never fired but deters the criminal anyway (and sometimes results in her capture as well).

        Many defensive uses of firearms which don't result in an injury or death would likely never make it into the news (the apparent primary, and perhaps sole, source of the NRA-ILA list), even if reported to the police. This is especially true in an urban area, where they just are not very newsworthy.

        In areas with gun control, I'm quite certain that many self defense uses that don't result in injury or death, but just in the criminal fleeing, are not reported because the gun owner fears that their firearm may not be in compliance with local laws, so best to just not report the crime or report it and leave out the detail of why the criminal fled. Such as:

        "Well, officer, I came downstairs to investigate a noise, showed my Glock and yelled 'get out' and the suspect fled"
        As well, I think the number of generally law abiding citizens that have never been investigated, arrested, or convicted of a crime more serious than speeding that sometimes carry concealed weapons or keep loaded firearms within easy reach in their cars, esp. in urban areas, would surprise many. I know I've been surprised at the number of people I've known for some time and had no discussions with about firearms or the Second Amendment who, when discovering that I'm a ardent supporter of the Bill of Rights - including the Second Amendment - eventually reveal that they sometimes carry illegally on their person or in their vehicle.

        For these reasons, it's almost certain that sources that rely on published news reports dramatically under-represent the actual number of defensive gun uses.

        Something to keep in mind about these defensive uses of firearms is that in virtually every case they protected an innocent citizen minding their own business.

        On the other hand, many of the examples of deaths or injury in the list in this diary impact the gun owner themselves, someone close to them who should reasonably know that the person is handling the gun irresponsibility and should have left if it continued, or LEOs either shooting others (in error?) or shooting themselves by accident.

        Given the disproportionate number of LEOs in the list who shot themselves but the relatively small percentage of LEOs in the general population, one has to wonder how effective certification requirements around training are. Perhaps we should consider disarming LEOs to protect them from themselves. That would be "something we can do" that would have an immediate impact by reducing accidental shootings by irresponsible people. It would be easy to enforce (search LEOs before they go on duty and, of course, they would have no reason to go to gun ranges anymore where they seem to injure themselves a lot currently).

    •  None of these were preventable. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mungley

      And nothing can or should be done. We must accept that gun violence and gun injury will continue forever and there is nothing we can or should do about it. Tough shit to all of the poor saps in the cited examples. Too bad if each of the cases involves more human suffering than that of the numbskulls who are responsible for shooting themselves or someone else. Citizens must be allowed ownership of any weaponry desired and the regulations that already exist must be repealed. Citizens who are not armed should be required by law to own guns and no person shall be required to show any proficiency with firearms of any description. When the soldiers and policemen representing the United States Government come with their nuclear weapons to take law-abiding American's guns they will wish they hadn't, by God. From my cold, dead hands.    

      •  Much better, I suppose, to enact a few (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hnichols

        changes that will help a bit at the fringes, pat ourselves on the back, and turn away, satisfied that good has been done.

        After all -- those kids being killed? They don't vote.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:23:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do people with a paranoid fear of our government, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        I love OCD

        advocating fighting off the police and military have anything sane to offer to this discussion?

      •  The point is that for all of the rhetoric (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mathazar

        guns are much more likely to either be used against the owner or injure or kill the owner or a family member than to kill "three, four, five hardened violent criminals" like Gayle Trotter fantasizes about.

        These people are the "responsible gun owners" that can't be bothered by excessive regulation.

        When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

        by PhillyJeff on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:20:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Which is why I am advocating... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kharma, Subterranean, ColoTim, Blissing

      A gun license no different that current concealed carry permits for all weapons and a modest gun liability insurance policy just like we require for cars.

      This, I believe would have eliminated a large portion of these incidents due to the training received and knowledge required to obtain a license.

      The second amendment was ratified to prevent tyranny.  However, it was not ratified so our citizen's could take up arms against their elected government but rather our fore fathers believed that a standing army would lead to too much power and therefor decided that the people of this country would keep their own weapons and could be called upon whenever the country needed to defend itself and those citizens should be regulated (i.e.trained).  I haven't heard many of the strong 2nd amendment rights advocates calling for the elimination of our standing armies but they should be if they knew what the second amendment actually stood for.

      Requiring a license to ensure they are properly trained and not a criminal or a psychopath does not infringe on anyone's rights.

      Requiring that if you choose to exercise your right to own and use a gun, you have to be responsible not to violate someone else's right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.  Insurance is proof of taking responsibility for your actions.

      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:20:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If any of that has to be paid for, then yes it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        is a violation.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:23:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can that really be true? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hnichols, nominalize, ColoTim

          A reasonable license fee -- appropriate to administrative costs, not something jacked up like tobacco taxes -- doesn't seem like it could infringe 2nd amendment rights.

          After all, if you don't have,say ten or twenty bucks for a license, how the heck are you going to buy a gun, ammunition, safety devices, etc?

          We even allow specific reasonable restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights.  It's hard to believe a non-punitive license fee would violate the Second.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:27:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Permits are needed for locations, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, WillR

            not for the speech. Guns can be gifted or inherited. And obviously financial situations change.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:51:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The restrictions on the 1st (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            myboo, Blissing, Laconic Lib

            As well as on the 2nd, are generally for cases when the harm to public safety or mores outweighs the benefit to the public.  That's why, say, libel is outlawed, along with false advertising, directly threatening people, outright sedition, and so on.  

            It's also why automatic machine guns were banned a long time ago, and why assault weapons are next--- the harm to the public ensuing from their mere availability outweighs the benefits.  If a licensing system, even paid, would balance the harm to public safety presented by personal firearms with their public benefit, then it will be allowed.  It shouldn't be hard to make the case, given the sheer number of apparent accidents.

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:07:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  How about... (0+ / 0-)

            ...a small poll tax to cover the cost of running elections? Would there be a problem there? Perhaps even switch to public financing of elections but the source of funding would be an even larger poll tax (after all, all that spending is directed at those who actually vote - shouldn't they pay?).

            Presumably voter id laws with similar hoops as what it takes to get a "license to exercise your Second Amendment Right" would also be okay?

            I just don't see how one can be charged or have to jump through hoops to exercise one right but not another. As a baseline, I apply much the same criteria for restrictions on voter registration and voting, speech rights, and Second Amendment rights. I will accept somewhat higher restrictions on speech and yet somewhat higher restrictions on the Second Amendment, but nothing like a binary order of magnitude more.

            You don't, for example, need a license that shows that you have had sufficient training in "speaking safely" in order to exercise your First Amendment right to speak out in a crowded public forum because you might yell "Fire" when, in fact, you know there is no fire.

        •  Please explain how... (0+ / 0-)

          As I described in the original comment, we already have permits for concealed carry and that does not appear to violate anyone's second amendment rights. The second amendment clearly states for a well regulated militia in which regulated means trained so requiring training doesn't appear to violate anyone's rights.  You have to prove that training which a license would do so who should pay for that training?  Either taxes or a licensing fee.

          Addressing my other point, do you support eliminating our standing army?  That was after all the purpose of the second amendment.  The money we would save would surely pay for some outstanding training opportunities for everyone.

          "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

          by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:33:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I will explain and answer: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            1. Concealed carry permits are optional. One does not need a concealed carry permit to keep and bear arms. This is the best analogy to needing a permit to protest: if you want to do X with this right, but not doing so DOESN'T keep you from exercising this right, then it's OK to require a permit/license.

            2. Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not reflect the current SCOTUS precedent, and is therefore a useless baseline for the debate.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:53:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for your explanation. (0+ / 0-)

              I would like to learn more.  Can you explain to me what the first part of the second amendment means if my interpretation is incorrect?  

              "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."  It is not there by accident, it means something.  My "interpretation comes from reading numerous articles, both pro and con, on the subject and using my own judgement which is inherently flawed.  Please, give me a better interpretation or show me where the supreme court ruled that the government cannot require training to own a weapon.  

              We require a prospective voter to register to vote and show some form of identification such as a voter registration card or something else.  The supreme court has not ruled it unconstitutional to require a state ID for voters even though many here would like them to.  We require, in many areas, a permit to assemble in public places, that may cost hundreds of dollars.  The fact that it costs money to get a license doesn't stop us from requiring people get driving licenses which the right to free movement around our country is somewhat dependent on.  We do not allow automatic weapons, which the supreme court has not ruled unconstitutional, so limiting access to some firearms is obviously not a denial of rights.

              Please educate me if I am wrong. I am not trying to start a pie fight here.  I am honestly trying to engage someone who possesses a completely different opinion than I do.  I promise that I will keep an open mind and  if you give me a coherent, compelling explanation as to why the government cannot require a gun owner to have training and a license to prove it, I will change my opinion and say so here for everyone to see it.

              "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

              by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:44:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Answers: (0+ / 0-)

                1. I really don't think it's constructive to debate this, because it doesn't matter 'what we think'. It only matters how the SCOTUS interprets it. I would turn this around on you and say: If you had to accept (which is like accepting reality) the current interpretation vis a vis the Heller decision, do you think it's consistent to require any registration, training, etc that costs money?

                2. The prospective voter, to register, does not need to have anything that costs money to do so.

                3. You do NOT need a permit to exercise your first amendment right. You don't need a permit to blog, yell in your front yard, etc. Similarly, while you need a permit to conceal carry in most states, you do NOT need a permit to own a non-automatic gun on your property or in public where the owners of the land have not disallowed it.

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:23:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, I do think it is very constructive... (0+ / 0-)

                  and I appreciate you staying with me here and discussing it in a civil manner.  I believe that when two people disagree and can maintain a civil discussion, it means there is hope for this world after all.

                  1.)  I believe it does matter what we think because "We" are what makes up this country and "They" represent "Us".  Here is what the SCOTUS has to say in District of Columbia vs Heller:
                  "Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."  Werein it also describes conditions that may prohibit someone like Mr. Heller from owning a gun here:
                  "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

                  2.)  The prospective voter may not incur costs but it does require him or her to register and have proof of who he or she is at the time of voting.  That is similar to a license and that is what I am calling for the buying of, possession of and selling of weapons.  We can call it second amendment rights registration if you like.

                  3.)  The right to assemble is right there in the first amendment:
                  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That is the same amendment that states clearly that:
                  "Congress shall make no law respecting..., or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging..." which is much less ambiguous that the second amendment and yet during the OWS movement, a common tactic was to charge exorbitant fees to assemble.  In fact, people for being arrested by the hundreds for excercising that right to assemble and many were violently assaulted.  Do you think it would have made things better if they were armed to protect themselves from the government's attempt to deny their rights?  You said that you do not need a permit to carry a non-automatic gun on your property but what determined that automatic versus non-automatic gun status?  It certainly wasn't the constitution.  There had to be judgement used as to want constituted "reasonable" for protection and standard use.  Who determined what was reasonable?  The government.  If they determined what was reasonable (and you didn't seem to have a problem with it) before people started going into elementary schools and shooting a score of six year olds in a matter of a few minutes then they can determine what is reasonable after.  

                  Heller actually sets precedent for reasonable gun restrictions and requiring a license.  It only prevents outright bans.

                  "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                  by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 01:13:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Replies, I appreciate you being civil too: (0+ / 0-)

                    1. We seemed to have moved the goalposts here. You began in this comment thread by discussing regulated militias, standing armies, etc. Nothing in the Heller decision, that you quoted or otherwise, limits anything or considers them EXCEPT for when discussing the type of gun that can be restricted without denying a 2nd Amendment right. I agree with that finding fwiw and have written diaries here discussing magazine restrictions, etc favorably.

                    2. I do not see your example as similar at all. If it wouldn't work as "1st amendment rights registration" or '4th amendment rights registration', then it doesn't work for the 2nd. I oppose registration, but if it was completely free to the gun-owner, I'm not sure it would be found unconstitutional.

                    3. It sounds like you oppose what you see as undue restrictions on the first amendment right to peaceably assemble. If that's true, then i would tend to agree more than disagree, but it hurts your argument that gun ownership should be restricted similarly.

                    I see what you did there.

                    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 02:08:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  So they should be handing out guns for free? (0+ / 0-)

          Last I heard you had to pay for those...

          •  I didn't say that. The 2nd doesn't say (0+ / 0-)

            'have the right to own them'. KEEP them, and BEAR them.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:26:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Just as... (0+ / 0-)

            ...you (or someone) has to pay for their internet access in order to exercise your free speech rights here on DK. But, the government can not require you to pay them or to be licensed to post here.

            Rights are things people are allowed to exercise - not things that the government must provide people the means to exercise.

            Simplistically, a right is not something the government owes you, it is something they can't interfere with. Government involvement is not required to exercise a right -- if the Federal Government shut down tomorrow, you wouldn't lose a single right. A right can be exercised on an isolated desert island with no government and with you as the only occupant.

            (This, by the way, is why I find the term "right to healthcare" so bizarre. Such a term merely means that each person has the right to pursue, or not pursue, whatever healthcare they choose to [ignoring that the FDA interferes with this all the time!] -- not that someone else must provide the resources to act on that decision.)

      •  I'm not aware of any... (0+ / 0-)

        ...state that requires cars to be licensed or insured.

        Yes, if operating under their own power or parked on public streets, I think (virtually?) all states require licensing and a minimal (and usually ridiculously inadequate) level of insurance.

        You even transport an unlicensed vehicle on public roads on a car carrier or tow truck without being in violation of the law.

        Besides, driving a car is a "driving privilege", not a right (at least that is what the DMV in my state claims).

        And, I'm not aware of a SCOTUS (or any other binding Federal level) decision recognizing a right to own or operate a car nor are those rights (or similar rights given the timeframe of the drafting of the document) outlined in the Constitution -- which, of course, meant to the Founders that the Federal government had no right to regulate/restrict such activities but states were free to do so without restriction. Of course, the Fourteenth Amendment coupled with the subsequent invention of the Incorporation Doctrine changed the state's freedom a bit on some other rights that are enumerated in the BoR and, if a "right to drive" were to be discovered in the penumbras of the Constitution, that right would likely soon be incorporated on the states.

    •  In most of these cases ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nominalize

      It's not the guns so much, as it's stupidity. Guns are NOT toys, so, a responsible person does NOT play with them, or over handled them. A responsible SMART person, does NOT clean his weapons 'loaded' NOR sleep with them (hands on).

      OR - have weapons unsecured - especially with children in the house.

      I'm ALL FOR more thorough background checks, but how do we background check for stupidity?

      •  There's the rub (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Boston to Salem

        I think that is ultimately why any attempt to keep guns in the "right" hands and out of the "wrong" hands is doomed to failure, because you can't background check for stupidity.  Or anger.  Or paranoia.  Or any number of the reasons that 100,000 Americans end up shot every year.  

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:10:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          myboo, Blissing

          I'm starting to like the idea of a licensing process and insurance. When something is free (as I'm sure you know) there is that mindset to be anonymous, carefree, etc ... There are no consequences.

          But, when you have to invest time and money, that's different.

          I think if gun owners had to pay a gun insurance, that would clean up a LOT of these stupid acts. If we had to go through a course training, like getting a drivers license (and a renewal) - that TOO would reduce some of these numbers I think.

          And, I own guns, I used to carry from time to time. I'm not a nut, I just happen to have a few ... I would pay for an extra insurance block on my homeowners policy, and I would have no qualms about taking a licensing test.

          Right now, to carry, I just have to stop by the police station, sign a card, pay 60 bucks and there I go, I could carry a gun around with no idea whether I'm disgruntled, deranged, emotional or even stable enough to have a nerf toy.

          AND THAT SCARES ME!

      •  Why not have anyone wanting to own one (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pgm 01

        take a written test and an operating test?  Just like cars.

        Oh and make them have liability insurance.

    •  Not too many of them. (0+ / 0-)

      What is needed is a law that will make people think hard before they buy a gun.  Something along the lines of, "Once you buy it, you are responsible for the actions of anyone who gets their hands on it.  You can lose your freedom, your money, your home and your job in criminal and civil proceedings if a child, a friend, a spouse, a relative or a stranger ever gets hold of this weapon.  The only way you will be able to absolve yourself of the responsibility is to destroy it."

      In a matter of five years, the number of guns in America would drop precipitously, and only people serious about killing and wounding would show up in this blog.

      Aborticentrism-- the closer life gets to being your responsibility, the less sacred it becomes

      by cgregor on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:20:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Probably very few of these incidents (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, Blissing

      would be prevented by the current namby-pamby regulations being proposed.   Guns are inherently lethal products which maim and kill the stupid people who have them.  Sadly stupid people worship the goddamn gun and the stupider they are the more gun owners adore their guns.  They even believe guns are innocent hunks of divine metal that are capable of restoring manhood and bringing peace.    

    •  Clearly none of them will prevent (0+ / 0-)

      every gun crime or accident.  How bout we outlaw guns and mock people who think they need one?  Repeal the second amendment?  Destroy all guns post-musket era and require that all musket owners spend every weekend at Camp Militia, learning self defense techniques and spending 5 hours a day marching, another 5 on calisthenics?  

      Those are some possible solutions.  

      I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

      by I love OCD on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:04:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That Is NOT "Begging the Question" (0+ / 0-)

      You mean it suggests the question to you.

      Begging the question.

  •  GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS (11+ / 0-)

    Lovely Guns!
    Wonderful Guns!

    What'll you have?

    I'm having guns guns guns guns guns guns knives guns guns guns and guns.

    Knives are off!

    How about more guns then?

    (Lousy Vikings).

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH 1, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:20:22 AM PST

  •  At McD's (5+ / 0-)

    Alpacas spit if you piss them off. So don't do that.

    by alpaca farmer on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:20:52 AM PST

  •  Thank you for your service,,, (5+ / 0-)
  •  To much stupidness (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    louisprandtl

    Ahhh!

    Republicans - they measure our national success by corporate profit margin, not the well being of the citizens.

    by egarratt on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:22:03 AM PST

  •  Desk pop (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David Waldman, fisheye, pgm 01


    i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

    by bobinson on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:24:21 AM PST

  •  Probably the best (24+ / 0-)

    Probably the best response to "guns don't kill people.  People kill people" is the following:  So would a monkey with a gun.  

    It's the availability of guns that is the problem.  

    And, no, the Second Amendment is not sacred as to restrictions.  We have restrictions on the First Amendment.  We most definitely have restrictions on the Fourth Amendment.  The idea that no one can tamper with the real/fantasized intent of the Second Amendment is BS.  

    •  Guns always shoot, (7+ / 0-)

      people always fuck up.

      guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

      by 88kathy on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:35:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Although... (0+ / 0-)

      ...the Fourth Amendment in its very text specifically recognizes that the Federal government is only barred from unreasonable searches [emphasis added]:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      I.e., the Founders recognized that the Fourth Amendment represented a qualified right and left it up to interpretation on what "unreasonable" might mean.

      However the Second Amendment uses very absolute and unequivocal language in the part about the "extent" of the right (ignoring debates about militias etc for the moment) [emphasis added]:

      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    •  I've gotten to thinking lately that before a (0+ / 0-)

      perspective buyer can be allowed the gun of their desire that they have to wait for a full FBI background check, screw that criminal background check, what's the difference between someone with a record and someone without one? Hint- one hasn't gotten caught- yet...
         My wife had to go through the whole spiel of the FBI when she became a cop, polygraph, checking friends, neighbors, ex employers, ex's, ect. Bet 95% of those who qualify for one now wouldn't if their neighbors, friends, and family gave their two cents worth in an investigation to their worthiness to be trusted with such a responsibility as gun ownership/carrying one.
          It was weird who all they talked to in investigating her, it went far beyond simply checking to see if she had a criminal background. And you have no idea of who they'll talk to, a few were people you'd never thought of.
         I think insurance should be mandatory, period.
         A nice flat tax of $1,000 per year for each non hunting weapon would be nice as well. Wanna stick armed guards at every school? Guns caused that, make guns pay for it, 100% of it

      Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

      by teabaggerssuckbalz on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:57:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I really want to know how many of the (3+ / 0-)

    above gun owners are " the law abiding "NRA or NSSF members.

  •  You should include a category for defense just to (11+ / 0-)

    show how rarely a gun is used to by people "defending" their homes.  In the list above, I saw only one instance in which someone discharged their weapon to defend themselves.  In that case, the burglar was already fleeing the scene, so discharging his weapon was unnecessary.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:27:51 AM PST

    •  And in an earlier installment (6+ / 0-)

      I recall a story about a guy who woke up when he heard someone in the house, whom he shot. Turned out, unsurprisingly, to be his roommate.

      "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

      by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:51:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A lot of people have asked for that. (13+ / 0-)

      But one, it wasn't actually the motivation for keeping the list, so there wasn't much point in doing work that wasn't relevant to my point or interesting to me personally. And two, it's not always all that clear when people are using guns for legitimate defense. You can't always tell from the stories as they're published, nor is there always really any way to tell from scant reports how legitimate the defense is.

      I really don't want to have to sort out the "I was defending my home" stories from the "I was defending my meth lab" ones.

      •  Gun success list is a job for the NRA (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim, MKinTN, gof

        Nothing would help the NRA more than an up to date verifiable database of gun successes that grows faster than your list. They don't publish a database for the simple reason that it would be too small to help their cause. They use the same handful of gun success stories over and over, because that is all they've got.

        You could defuse some of the requests by suggesting that people post links to lists of gun successes in the comments.

        •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

          ...except for the ones that they report regularly that happened in the past weeks.

          However, see my comments here and here about how defensive uses of guns are likely under-reported to police and even more under-reported in the media.

          Also, we don't judge rights based on how many reported examples there are of when they impact others negatively. We don't compare the size of two lists drawn up by opposing parties and decide on the Constitutionality of a matter based on that balance.

          For example, the current interpretations of the Fourth, Fifth,  Sixth, and Eighth Amendments surely prevent police, prosecutors and judges from solving many crimes and prosecuting and punishing/executing those who commit them. Given the recidivism (if ever convicted) rate and serial criminal nature of many violent criminals, these Amendments allow many criminals to remain in, or return, to society to commit subsequent serious crimes against victims.

          Yet, we don't just count the number of crimes committed by repeat offenders or by those who were already convicted of a crime and give the police free reign to search anything, anytime, for any or no reason. Nor do we sentence criminals to death for minor violent crimes. Nor do we allow the judge to overrule the jury when they acquit an obviously guilty person. Nor do we allow the police to detain people for months without counsel while torturing them to reveal where the evidence can be found to convict them.

          Nope, the courts interpret enumerated rights quite broadly and will likely continue to do so (I'm sure we all hope for that at least). Heller and McDonald have changed the landscape more than hardly anyone here seems to imagine. The state of gun control laws that exist and are allowed now is rather like the state of Jim Crowe laws before landmark SCOTUS decisions such as Brown. Get used to it or amend the Constitution to get rid of the Second Amendment (much as I expect segregationists would have liked to amend the Constitution to allow segregation).

    •  Not just "unnecessary" (6+ / 0-)

      a crime .
      And there are two stories , not just one .
      The one you didn't mention is the best of them all ,

      NAMPA, ID, 2/06/13: Police in Nampa say a man who confronted a stranger in the backyard of a friend's house was stabbed and then shot in the leg with his own gun before the attacker ran away. Witnesses told police the victim saw a man he didn't know in his friend's backyard and went outside to confront him. They fought and the victim was stabbed. Police say the victim's gun went off during the struggle, but it isn't clear who fired it.
      Can you count all the fail in this one ?

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:58:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I said unnecessary, b/c I imagine there are gun (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mrkvica

        nuts who believe he was well within his rights to kill the burglar even if he was fleeing.  The stand your ground laws many states have been passed in other states would likely make his actions legal.  Regardless, they were definitely unnecessary.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

        by ecostar on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:29:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  At which point it turned (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrkvica

      From home defense into attempted murder.

      Repeal the 2nd amendment.

      by Calouste on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:00:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That list is not possible to... (0+ / 0-)

      ...collect reliably.

      Obviously, almost every actual serious injury or death from a firearm is reported to the police and the more notable ones end up in the news. Admittedly, it's likely some minor accidental ones are never reported (grazing wounds to oneself for example) because the injured party decides not to seek medical care because they either feel stupid about the situation or don't want to risk the police charging them with some crime (such as negligent discharge of a firearm)

      However, in the case of self defense, it's unlikely that most uses involve discharge, let alone discharge resulting in injury or death of another party -- just as most armed robberies don't result in the criminal discharging her gun, let alone injuring anyone.

      Without discharge of the defensive weapon, the attempted crime is likely never reported in some cases. Even in cases where it is reported to the police, is not very newsworthy in urban areas so it's unlikely to make it into the media. Given the labyrinth of gun laws in this country, a substantial portion of the gun owning population think they are in compliance, but are concerned that they may have be in violation of some detailed provision of the hundreds of firearm laws that impact them. Other gun owners know they are likely not in complete compliance. These individuals are likely to decide not to report crimes aborted by their "non-discharge" use of a defensive weapon or, if reported, "forget" to mention the part about how the criminal left not because they were told to but because there was a firearm pointed at them when that command was given.

      Seriously, at the extreme, how many people buying illegal drugs report to the police when they get ripped off by the dealer? Those that do are rare and end up in the "World's Dumbest Criminals" lists.

  •  Supposedly, there are 2.5 mil DGU per year (21+ / 0-)

    According to the gun enthusiasts, there are around 2.5 million instances of a "defensive gun use" in the US every year.  Doing the math, that would mean there are around 6800 instances of a "defensive gun use" in the US every day!

    Yet somehow, episodes of "defensive gun use" never show up in the mass media - not on TV, or newspaper reporting, or even news media web-sites.

    Anyone with access to Google can find hundreds of verified reports (verified by the police!!) every day of people being injured or killed by guns.

    If the figures above are to be believed, there should be even more verified reports of "defensive gun uses".  Yet we never see them.

    Maybe that is because of the reporting problems the author mentions above.  

    Or maybe it is because the fantasy of frequent "defensive gun uses" is just that: a fantasy!

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:29:13 AM PST

    •  DGUs do exist, of course. (8+ / 0-)

      And probably in large numbers. But they're hard to find in anything approaching the numbers claimed, and that's probably because no one really knows what survey respondents think a DGU actually is.

      Shooting a burglar? Well, that's clearly a DGU, right?

      Shooting a burglar in the back? Well, in this week's story, local law enforcement would disagree. Not a legitimate DGU. But how would the respondent to an anonymous telephone survey respond? "Yes! Absolutely!"

      But how about, "Well, I carry my gun in the rough part of town, and nobody's bothered me yet. So if your question is, 'Have I used my gun to defend myself in the past year?' my answer is 'Yes! Absolutely!'"

      But is that right?

      The problem is that the overwhelming number of DGUs claimed don't involve actually shooting anyone. That part isn't the problem, of course! The problem is that there's no traditional media reporting of non-events. Occasionally you'll see a story in a local paper about a claim from a homeowner to have scared off a prowler. But if there's no shooting involved, you'll only see that in local police blotter reporting. And even then, only maybe.

      How do we know the vast majority of DGUs claimed don't involve shooting anyone? Because there aren't anywhere near 2.5 million people a year showing up in hospitals with gunshot wounds. And among those who do show up, only a tiny fraction of them are the victims of DGUs.

      So documentation of DGU stories is going to take some real detective work. Someone who's interested in the subject can surely take it up, and if they provide links to each story, they'd be doing us a real service, no matter what their numbers are.

      •  Did a diary on this recently (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nominalize, ColoTim, gof

        and with the help of the comments mostly cut through the bullshit.

        Basically boils down to:

        in the study that came up with 2.5 million DGU, 8% of time defender wounded or killed attacker.

        Gunshots have ~20% mortality rate.

        There are recorded ~300 cases of justifiable homicides by civilians each year.

        so 300 / 0.2 / 0.08 ~ 20k DGU per year.

        You can play with the number a little bit to get between 10-30k reasonably, but hard to justify much outside of that.

      •  If I yell "Hey! Get off my lawn!" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kharma, mrkvica

        and I have a gun in the closet, is that DGU? What about if I turn on the porch light and scare away some up-to-no-good kids who were prowling around the neighborhood?

      •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nominalize, kharma, gof

        Yes, I agree that defensive gun uses occur.

        And yes, I agree that defensive gun uses are much harder to document than are gunshot injuries and deaths.

        I don't know for a fact, but I suspect the vast majority of documented defensive gun uses are done by law enforcement officers.  If the cops pull their guns to apprehend a fleeing bank robber, I think we can all agree that a documented defensive gun use has occurred.

        But what about that shooting a couple of weeks ago at Lone Star State College librabry?  Two guys get in a tiff, both pull guns and start blazing away.  Both claim they used their guns in self-defense.  So is this two instances of a defensive gun use?  No, this should more properly be documented as two criminal uses of a gun.

        Or what about the woman walking a city street late at night?  She fears the guy walking behind her is going to do her some harm, so she turns around and shows the guy her gun.  The guy runs away.  Is this a defensive use of a gun?  Maybe, and maybe not, because we can never know for certain what that guy was planning or going to do.

        So, I for one do not believe that defensive gun uses occur with the great frequency claimed by gun enthusiasts.  If the gun enthusiasts want to convince me I am wrong, they need to show the many documented defensive gun uses.  And I have never seen that proof.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:47:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Free speech enthusiasts... (0+ / 0-)

          ...have very few proven cases where free speech saved lives in the United States in recent years. Similar for the other aspects of most provisions of the BoR.

          Sorry, the burden of proof is on the party who wants to deny a right, not on the one who wants to retain the ability to exercise it.

      •  I would counter that... (0+ / 0-)

        ...people who own guns may be very unlikely to respond truthfully to an "anonymous" telephone survey about past gun usages -- esp. if they failed to report the incident to the police and don't know if that is illegal or if they don't know if a gun law passed recently which they were unaware of may have rendered their guns illegal in some way. They don't, for example, know if the alleged survey monkey is actually a detective or if their answers and phone number will be published somewhere (either intentionally, or after a FOIA request, or by hackers who get to the data illegitimately).

        As well, most people who own guns in most urban areas would be very suspicious of anyone who called asking them about ownership (and, usage, is obviously strongly correlated to ownership).

        Most people who own guns that I know are more likely to know about an overly aggressive recall of eggs due to contamination than a newly enacted gun law -- simply because the former appears on the "front page" for many days while the latter may be there for a few hours (if it ever makes it there). Thus, they are very cautious because most aren't aware of the details of every gun law (any more than any licensed driver is aware of every traffic law in states with extensive vehicle codes).

        Many gun owners that I know don't think it's anyone's business what happens in their bedroom or what's in their gun safe.

        If someone calls me and starts asking questions about firearm ownership, I may hang up on them or, more likely, under report (claiming to own none) even if I actually owned a gun. Why would I want to tell a criminal that may be "casing" my house posing a telephone survey monkey what firearms, coins, jewelry, paintings I might have?

        If I carried a gun illegally (I don't) in a bad part of town, I certainly wouldn't admit to it in any form of survey, let alone claim I had used it for self defense. I'm not an idiot and I don't think most people are. It's not illegal to mislead a survey monkey (or, even a Federal official posing as one -- you have to know the official you are lying to is an official to be nailed by the Martha Stewart crime).

        Anyway, what does/does not get reported in the media is not a reliable way to even begin to form public policy because it's not reliable.

    •  They show up in the NRA magazine . (0+ / 0-)

      They have a monthly list of same .

      "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

      by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:01:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A trusted source (6+ / 0-)

        of course, anyone can make up a story of bravely facing down muggers and burglars with a gun.

        Documenting that an actual crime was actually in progress, and was actually interrupted because of the gun is the hard part.

        No doubt gun enthusiasts like to claim high numbers of defensive gun uses.  OK, prove it to me: show me the police report, or some other reliable form of documentation.

        Conversely, a valid police report exists for each and every single instance of death due to gunshot injury.  Now documented at over 30,000 in the US every year.  

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:53:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The NRA making up bullshit craptastic stories ? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, ColoTim, pgm 01

          Na , nevvva .

          I'd like to see number 23 printed in the NRA magazine .

          NAMPA, ID, 2/06/13: Police in Nampa say a man who confronted a stranger in the backyard of a friend's house was stabbed and then shot in the leg with his own gun before the attacker ran away. Witnesses told police the victim saw a man he didn't know in his friend's backyard and went outside to confront him. They fought and the victim was stabbed. Police say the victim's gun went off during the struggle, but it isn't clear who fired it.

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:00:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did Nampa have police to call? Inquiring minds (0+ / 0-)

            Want to know. Too many stupid people are trying to be "Dirty Harry" when they are worse than "Barney Fife".

            Too many guns are in the hands of people who don't know about gun safety.

          •  The NRA does... (0+ / 0-)

            ...give the date and source of the news article in almost every case, just as this diary does. You can check the veracity for yourself -- do you also think the news media makes up and publishes these reports?

            If you can find some that misrepresent the media report they cite (do be careful however with online sources, too many online news sources change the text without updating the URL or noting the changes in an "update log" - a despicable practice in my opinion), you should be able to find many instances pretty quickly since you seem to think the NRA makes them up. That would be useful information for everyone here and would deflate the NRA's balloon.

        •  Dear (0+ / 0-)

          Penthouse NRA
          I never thought this would happen … :D

        •  61% of 30K are suicides of course... (0+ / 0-)

          ...and suicide is now legal in most (maybe all by now) states.

          So these suicides are not, necessarily, criminal uses of firearms. True, in some cases, the person may have violated some law such as "illegal discharge of a firearm within city limits" in the process of committing suicide.

          The murder/suicide cases of course are one murder (illegal) and one suicide (legal).

          We need to look only at illegal uses of firearms just as we only look at illegal uses of chef's knives when considering banning them.

    •  Other studies claim it's as low as 65k per year. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim

      That'd be 2 for every gun death.  (Got the number from wikipedia - they have 2.5 million at the high end, 65k at the low end).

    •  That number comes from a questionable study (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, Laconic Lib

      that's been debunked...

      A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, claimed that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.[14] Kleck claims that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed Kleck's conclusion that defensive gun use numbers at least in the hundreds of thousands each year, and that a far larger number of surveys (at least 20) have shown that defensive uses outnumbered criminal uses;[15] however, the Hemenway study just cited gives no such figure and says in its conclusion, "We might expect that unlawful 'self-defense' gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones." Critics, including Hemenway, respond that these estimates are difficult to reconcile with comparable crime statistics, are subject to a high degree of sampling error, and that "because of differences in coverage and potential response errors, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain; mere repetition does not eliminate bias".[16] In another article, Hemenway notes that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. In the same article, Hemenway notes that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.[17]

      Various studies have found that defensive gun uses occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that found by Kleck. In the article "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, the authors quote the National Crime Victim Survey as finding 108,000 DGUs per year. One section of the article compares the U.S. crime rate to the number of DGUs reported by Kleck and Kleck-like studies and concludes that their estimate of the DGUs is improbably high.[18] An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics says, "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."[19]

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

      by richardak on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:06:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Something Hemenway doesn't mention (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nominalize, richardak, myboo, ColoTim, gof, mrkvica

        This is a slightly edited part of my comment from another diary about this debunked study:

        * * *

        But I have not as yet seen anyone ask questions about the timing of Kleck's survey. Was there anything going on in society prior to, or at the time, of Kleck's survey that may have caused survey respondents to want to justify gun ownership by fabricating DGU incidents; thereby biasing Kleck's estimates high?

        Let's take a look at Kleck's survey. He states in his Method section:

           Interviewing was carried out from February through April of 1993.
        Hmmm...let's think back at highly-publicized events of that era that might cause gun owners to worry about the government taking their guns, and might spur them to exaggerate or fabricate incidents to justify gun ownership (such as DGU).

        There was Ruby Ridge, of course, in August 1992, in which Federal agents shot and killed Randy Weaver's wife and child over Weaver's pending illegal weapons charge.  

        That was certainly highly publicized.  And it happened only six months before Kleck's survey.

        And then there the introduction in February 1993 of the reviled (by anti-gun control folks) Brady Bill by Sen. Schumer, shortly after Bill Clinton (who had campaigned in part on gun control) was inaugurated as President. That happened during Kleck's survey.

        Anything else going on at that time, one wonders?

        Hey!  What about the Waco siege?  Didn't that happen around that time? Wasn't that highly publicized? It also was about illegal weapons charges by the ATF. And that certainly didn't turn out well for those who might feel the need to arm themselves against a tyrannical government, eh?

        Let's check: Waco siege: February 28, 1993 to April 19, 1993.  

        Huh. February through April of 1993.  Where have I heard those dates before?

           Interviewing was carried out from February through April of 1993.
        Why thank you, professor Kleck.  That's right.  

        Now that you mention it, I wonder why you didn't bother to address that little factor in your paper?  

        In a way, Kleck's survey could be viewed as similar to a survey taken during a flood of whether people think flood insurance is a good idea.

        I don't think any reasonable, objective person should view Kleck's 1993 survey as accurate.  Even ignoring its glaring statistical flaws and propensity for overestimating rates of DGU that have been clearly and repeatedly described by other researchers, it was taken during a veritable maelstrom of heightened sensitivity about guns, gun ownership, and government aggression against individuals. And I'm not exaggerating: that maelstrom led directly to the rise of the militia movement and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

      •  Interestingly, the study by Kleck (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nominalize, richardak, ColoTim, pgm 01

        Interestingly, the study by Kleck and Gertz (the one that claims 2.5 mil defensive gun uses every year and is so-oft cited by gun enthusiasts) was published not in a science or a medical journal, but in a law journal.  

        Law journals are not well known for high standards of data analysis and statistical reporting.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:04:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I hate this post (14+ / 0-)

    And thank you for doing it.  This should be required reading for all legislators.

  •  Thank you for doing this (5+ / 0-)

    Too bad somebody being paid big bucks for journalism in our major media isn't doing this. You'd think with all the attention being given to guns right now, any respectable major media corporation would have someone putting this together. Where is 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc.? Maybe MSNBC could replace the prison chronicles with this info for a year.

    There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. - Sun Tzu

    by OHeyeO on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:32:36 AM PST

  •  They were all "prepared". (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber
  •  A shout out to Tom Begnal's (7+ / 0-)

    efforts to daily bring these sad events to our attention and to highlight the insanity of our gun "culture".
    His last diary is here: Another day in the gun crazy USA
    Maybe a link to his work could be included in this post?

  •  Picture FAIL: Those are likely airsoft guns. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    http://www.airsoftsociety.com/...

    The barrels look awfully thin, no?

    But carry on, please proceed, etc. Accuracy doesn't matter (no pun intended), only feelings.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:52:26 AM PST

  •  Can Congress pass a bill that bans (8+ / 0-)

    the cleaning of guns?

    This seems to be an excessively dangerous activity.

    "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

    by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:55:13 AM PST

    •  Dirty weapons are even more dangerous. (0+ / 0-)

      "Huh? It jammed? Let's look down the barrel to see-" BANG

      -this space for rent-

      by EsnRedshirt on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:12:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK. How about this idea? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSPS owl, Tim DeLaney, Blissing, Mathazar

        A handgun manufactured with 3 bullets installed, but with no way to reload it. Once the 3 bullets are fired, the weapon is useless and can be discarded.

        3 bullets should be plenty when there is a real emergency that requires the gun owner to shoot at someone. Something like an armed break-in or carjacking or whatever. Otherwise, no need to be shooting it.

        Since the gun is disposed of after the 3 rounds are fired, no need to clean it. And if it falls into the wrong hands, it wona't be useful for a massacre

        "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

        by aggressiveprogressive on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:24:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Pitiful (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nominalize

    Some of these people probably rushed out to buy a gun before the government banned all new gun sales. Obviously, they didn't know how to handle a gun. Even law enforcement people were goofing up! So one of the minimum requirements for gun ownership should be a license and proof of competence via having taken training. I'm probably paying higher insurance rates because of these nimrods, too!

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by deebee on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:00:01 AM PST

  •  We would all have to carry a loaded gun, in our (4+ / 0-)

    hands at all times for it to be an effective defense weapon.

    woman, walking to her car at night, bad guy hits her in the back of the head, gun in her purse, what use is it?

    now if she walks to her car, gun drawn, it is a defense weapon
    is this what we all want?
    All of us with guns drawn at all times? because that is the only way to have access to your gun when you need it

    •  Ironic post coming from your screen name (0+ / 0-)

      Just wondering what happened to make you so happy.

      Then again, I like the article of clothing on my wife, so I'm hoping she doesn't do whatever you might have done...

      All grinning, no malice implied.

    •  Don't carry it in your purse,... (0+ / 0-)

      ...instead carry it in your jacket or pants in a pocket holster. Or, even, just carry it in a purse with an easily accessible built in holster.

      Do you always have an open line to 911 on your mobile phone? After all, that's the only way to protect yourself (well, at least get your body picked up before it's too stiff).

      Do police officers always carry their guns in their hands? If not, why do they bother to carry them at all?

      Do criminals always carry their weapons out in the open - of course not so why do they carry them at all? In fact, some just show the victim the outline or otherwise lead their victims to believe they actually have a gun in their pocket and generally that's enough to get the victim to comply. Similarly, the hint that a victim has a firearm will deter most criminals (those that don't use that strategy will have short careers).

      Your assertion is just ridiculous frankly.

  •  Ironically, horrible murder/suicides not 'gunfail' (5+ / 0-)

    ...in that the gun worked exactly as it was designed to.

    But having such intrinsically lethal devices in the hands of any fool who wants one, particularly when alcohol, immaturity, jealousy and the usual range of human frailties are involved, simply guarantees a lot of needlessly dead people.

  •  I don't own a gun but I know basic gun safety. (6+ / 0-)

    And virtually all of the accidental shootings are FAILS when it comes to gun safety.

    1. Always treat a gun as if it's loaded.
    2. Do not point a gun at anything you don't want to put a hole in.
    3. Do not put your finger on the trigger until and unless you intend to fire.

    -this space for rent-

    by EsnRedshirt on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:09:51 AM PST

  •  One is not a FAIL (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, Mathazar, mrkvica, WillR
    WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, PA, 2/05/13: A York County man shot and killed his terminally ill wife with a rifle late Tuesday night and then killed himself, according to state police. Police said that Sherman Brown, 85, used a .22 caliber rifle to kill Jeanette Brown, 84, who was terminally ill with cancer. An investigation revealed that her health was significantly deteriorating, police said.
    I can't imagine the thought process that let up to that moment.  My wife and I have had this conversation should one us have to watch the other suffer.  Not an easy topic to discuss in the abstract, I can only imagine how much more difficult when its actually happening.

    If this couple lived in Oregon with their Death with Dignity laws Mr and Mrs Brown may not have been pushed to this.

    But I'm not passing judgement on this act, nor do I understand how anyone else here could.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:13:21 AM PST

  •  America: Too many guns and too many idiots (5+ / 0-)

    It will take evolution a good while to get rid of the idiots. So let's work on getting rid of guns.

  •  Is that the LAPD weapons locker pictured? (0+ / 0-)

    Given the pictures on CNN's front page of cops carrying guns bigger than they are, it looks like it.

  •  Regarding the "delicate" category (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, ColoTim, Blissing, Mathazar

    this edition, as well as past, I am shocked at the number of murder-suicides or attempted suicides. Gun control is a women's and children's health issue.  

    Dementia, you better treat me good. ~Conor Oberst "Slowly (Oh So Slowly)"

    by NotActingNaive on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:28:53 AM PST

  •  Okay, David, here's one for ya: (7+ / 0-)

    An offshoot (oh, I kill myself with my puns!) of the manhunt for the ex-LAPD cop who posted a Facebook manifesto and had so far killed one cop and injured two others:

    LAPD officers shot the shit out of a truck being driven by two paper carriers: a 71-year-old woman and her 47-year-old daughter - check out the photo with the article - thinking it might be the one driven by the suspect.

    Nevermind that they did NOTHING to ascertain beforehand who was in the truck (it being well known among certain gun-toting defenders of justice that linebacker-sized black men often masquerade as petite elderly Hispanic ladies) or, well, ANYTHING - just opened fire like it was Bonnie and Clyde.

    Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. - Paul Wellstone

    by occams hatchet on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:36:18 AM PST

    •  This is why... (0+ / 0-)

      ...we must disarm police -- if it might "save just one life".

      Oh, and requiring training for carrying a firearm is obviously ridiculous as this case shows that it doesn't work.

      •  I see what you did there. (0+ / 0-)

        More to the point, this case illustrates the absolute absurdity that adding more armed people to every threatening situation will make everyone involved safer.

        Nice strawman, though.

        Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. - Paul Wellstone

        by occams hatchet on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:20:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Guns make their owners stupid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrkvica

    or perhaps stupid people get guns.   Whichever a gun owner as these 'fails' prove is intellectually and morally inferior to normal humanity.

  •  Clearly, a dirty gun is a safer gun (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Johnson, Mathazar, mrkvica

    judging from the number of injuries incurred while cleaning a gun.

    Pass it on: DON'T clean your gun!

    Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

    by Tim DeLaney on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:14:07 AM PST

  •  Thanks for the research and the list! (0+ / 0-)

    This is a great service, David. It is important to know that dozens of injuries, deaths, and damage to property occur each week because guns are available to basically anyone. Otherwise,  people might get complacent and think, "Oh, it's not that bad," and then forget about the issue.

    Great work!

  •  Of course this doesn't include (0+ / 0-)

    an incident on the 4th in which a guy negligently discharged a flare gun and nearly removed his primary sex characteristics.

    LEHIGH ACRES, FL -
    A 23-year-old man was taken to the hospital with multiple burn wounds after he accidentally shot himself in the genitals with a flare gun, according to the Lee County Sheriff's Office.

    Deputies responded to a home in Lehigh Acres Sunday in reference to a medical assistance call.

    Upon arrival, 23-year-old Jorge Perez was found with multiple burn wounds and lacerations to his genital area.

    Perez told deputies he was playing with a flare gun that was unloaded.

    After dry firing the gun a few times, Perez says he then loaded the gun and put it down.

    When he picked it up, Perez forgot the gun was loaded and fired it at the ground.

    Perez told deputies the flare round struck the floor and ricocheted into his genital area.

    Perez was taken to the hospital for his injuries.

    "O mulier, magna est fides tua. Fiat tibi sicut vis."

    by rujoking on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 03:32:34 PM PST

  •  I would like to point out (0+ / 0-)

    that even though there are those in this thread who say that currently proposed laws would do nothing to reduce these deaths and injuries, that based on the 'responsibility' some of these gun owners showed, they are prime targets for gun theft.  

    Now I am not sure about the 'statistics', but I would just go out on a limb and say that people who steal a gun are usually criminals.  I know, call me crazy!  A national gun registry, similar to car registry, would force these 'responsible' gun owners to account for the whereabouts of their gun on a yearly basis.   It might, just might, encourage these 'responsible' gun owners to keep track of the guns they love so much.  I would then propose they also be licensed to carry their gun which would require testing, similar to a drivers test, to show they truly ARE responsible gun owners.  Then they can have the FREEDOM to shoot themselves in the foot to their hearts content if that is what they desire.  However, they would need to be INSURED so that any damage they do to property, themselves, or others, would be covered and not on the taxpayer's dime.  Might make them think twice about shooting themselves in the foot.

    Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

    by whoknu on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 05:58:17 PM PST

  •  I nominate (0+ / 0-)

    #2 and # 6 in the first list for the Darwin awards. Or at least the Darwin hopefuls.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site