Fun fun fun blah blah blah.
Now here’s a can of worms we can discuss.
Or we can talk about this.
 Yes yes, I see it, shut up. I’ll fix it today.
I think you wrote Heidi where you meant to write Alex.
I did not catch the mistake. I automatically substituted Alex’s name for Hedi in the last sentence.
Did you mean for Heidi to refer to herself in the third person? Did you mean Alex instead?
Heidi is referring to her business partner by the wrong name, twice.
Holy shit. She’s a clone!
Like, evil scientist clone?
No, no it’s Texas. I’m sure it’s a Pod-person clone.
And yet, somehow I understood it and didn’t even notice the error
Shows how much I notice.
Same as BikerGeek…
Dallas County OKs plan to confiscate guns from abusers, starting in October
“Dallas County OKs plan to deny right to counsel from abusers, starting in October”
“Dallas County OKs plan to ignore cruel and unusual punishment from abusers, starting in October”
“Dallas County OKs plan to restrict women’s suffrage from abusers, starting in October”
“Dallas County OKs plan to allow the quartering of soldiers in the homes of abusers, starting in October”
People would go apeshit if it were any other Constitutional deprivation. Why never the 2nd?
Because few people have been killed with women’s suffrage?
What about in places that the popular vote has kept the death penalty in place?
I’m not sure how you measure that. Any president elected with the surge-vote from women might have ordered military strikes, can we attribute partial blame?
These are people ALREADY prohibited from having guns. Your arguments are Red Herrings, unrelated and frankly not worth the time.
You are incorrect. Not sure where you’re getting your info, but felons can’t have guns unless their rights are restored. Not all DV perps are felons. This law changes things. You may argue for it or against it, but don’t say it doesn’t change things.
DV perps are not allowed to PURCHASE firearms (it’s on the 4473), but they are allowed to possess them. Bit of a loophole- anything you had beforehand just gets grandfathered.
Ayep. You’re talking 5th Amendment protections, there.
“DV perps are not allowed to PURCHASE firearms (it’s on the 4473), but they are allowed to possess them. Bit of a loophole- anything you had beforehand just gets grandfathered.”
What about being gifted a firearm?Is this ok?
We restrict the rights of those accused of crimes in many ways all the time, depending on the crimes and circumstances. This is no different. And it varies from state to state, many (like PA where I live) a protection from abuse order or charges of domestic violence means you cannot POSSESS firearms temporarily and must turn them in (they are seized if you are arrested).
They’re prohibited from physically possessing or having effective control over firearms, but legally-speaking, they can -own- firearms (they just can’t touch or use ‘em). Which means that they can have their friends clear out their homes and sell their firearms…especially since that kind of material wealth is handy when defending one’s self in a court of law against charges.
And we’re not even going to mention this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28948946
It’s all over the news here (UK) but I guess it isn’t worth a mention there. Interestingly, I hadn’t heard either of the stories you posted, not even the good news one.
Definitely we are two different cultures.
The general line of thought here seems to be “What kind of dumb-ass puts that kind of hardware in the hands of a 9 year old?”. It isn’t a matter of rights or the constitution, it’s a matter of “Don’t be that guy”.
“Charles Vacca, 39, was shot in the head and died after being airlifted to a hospital in Las Vegas.”
No…he was shot in the head, flown to hospital and then died. Last I heard doctors dont use 9mm as scalpels. What shite copy editing that site has.
Actually, he was probably dead on the scene, but there wasn’t an MA to make it official….
Uh… you don’t airlift a corpse just because the coroner’s busy. That shit’s expensive.
People can take a long time to die, and ’tis better to airlift and hope than get your ass sued off for not taking all possible measures to save his life.
Sigh. I’m never surprised in the slightest by the ability of stupid people to be stupid. What a sad story.
That one was in the same edition of the paper as this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rotherham-abuse-scandal-towns-officials-now-oversee-child-protection-elsewhere-in-britain-9695443.html
Any minute now the NRA will say we should have given every 9-yr-old girl in Rotherham an Uzi, starting back in 1980.
So … I had a little go at the NRA. I reckon they kind of had that coming with some of the crap they’ve said in the past, like: “If only that high school had employed armed guards, like the ones who did nothing to stop that other high school massacre, this high school massacre would have been stopped.” Just a little dig at them.
Today’s newspaper has a column that’s a bit … less restrained … and less … selective of its targets.
Take blood pressure medication before reading it, if you need that stuff, okay?
That article is a read herring. They are deliberately choosing a 3rd world country to prove a point that relates to a first world country situation.
*Sigh* Death by poor judgement. Parents with poor judgement. Instructor also had poor judgement and let his guard down. The “USA gun culture” of these people is NOT the gun culture I grew up in, nor is it any saner than the anti gun knee jerk culture it seeks to oppose.
8 years old, we got to handle an air gun. Smooth bore Daisy target special, 15′ target shooting at THE SCHOOL GYM, Friday nights.
12 years old, a rifled pellet gun at 25’/10 meters. Still doing my target shooting in the school gym…
I got to shoot .22 rimfire at 12 as well, but the next year we were restricted from shooting .22 LR at 50′ in the school gym by insurance requirements, so only air rifles from then on (at school).
Kids normally got their first .22 at 12. MAYBE a shotgun, if parents were farmers or bird hunters. At 15 or 16, we took the DNR mandated “hunter safety” class, once again taught AT THE HIGH SCHOOL. Because with that, at age 16 it was OK to hunt without a parent or guardian in sight. By age 16, I was an instructor for the 8-11 year old group and helped with the Hunter Safty classes.
What these parents chose for their daughter would not have passed muster with my instructors.
That gun culture still exists in a rare oasis. Wickenburg AZ has a high school with a rifle team taught by the Art Teacher, a Vietnam Vet, where they practice (and compete) with AR-15s, until this past few years. Why the change? Private donations have bought them up to F-class… scope-sighted bipod mounted 800 yard competition rifles.
Stupidity on the part of the instructor. I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that -thousands- of kids (some even younger) had fired that Uzi without a problem. The instructor started off well…he had her fire a single shot from the Uzi, so she got used to the recoil. He should have stepped up to two or three rounds, to let her feel what it was like to have repeating recoil. If she’d “lost control” with three rounds, she’s going to shoot maybe a round wild, but not behind or to her side. And the instructor should be right on her, hand on the gun, while she shoots.
Exactly Steve. Including 9 year olds with Mini-Uzis. It’s actually not that uncommon in the NFA world.
The key is the phrase, “with proper instruction and preparation.”
The range in question is a “tourist range’ where people, many of whom have *never* handled a firearm, can rent a full auto weapon.
The instructor DID NOT do effective instruction (in fact, ON FILM violates several key basics of instructing a new shooter into full auto), the shooter WAS NOT properly prepared, and NONE of the effective fall-back “engineering” solutions that could have been employed to ensure the gun couldn’t go beyond the control of the shooter were employed. (Best “engineering” solution would have cost about $75 to build without *any* specialized tools or parts at all, in a “knock-down” mode that could be erected in two minutes and adjusted to accommodate the height of the shooter. The fact that a range that makes a significant chunk of its nut renting machineguns to newbies didn’t bother tethering or restricting the gun at all speaks volumes.)
I don’t have much to say about that one. The instructor was a dumb fuck, and got what dumb fucks get. Non-issue, in my mind. You don’t hand a full auto weapon to a child and then let them spray all over the place, because if you do that, you get dead.
If, as the first story claims, “It’s unclear how Douglas got his pistol”, how exactly do they figure to know he had one in the first place? I mean, he was already a prohibited person, and clearly that did not stop him from obtaining a gun. Do they honestly think he, or anyone else in his situation who plans violence will willingly hand over their firearms IF the state actually finds out they have them?
This amounts to a “Why have any laws?” argument.
NO, it amounts to a “why have laws that don’t work and carry a distinct potential for more harm than good” argument. Such an argument may be had about a great many laws. And any law that cannot be reasonably enforced is worse than no law at all.
In this case, given the nature of firearms and their pervasiveness, just how do we ensure that these “prohibited persons” get no guns? We can’t even stop repeat violent felons from getting guns (and in my jurisdiction, one can get a domestic battery conviction for sneezing too hard on the “victim,” generally defined as the one who calls 911 first. Protective orders are handed out like candy, on nothing that would qualify as “proof” whatsoever, often as the first preemptive strike in a nasty divorce fight. I’m less than impressed. Moreover, the “most people are murdered in domestic situations” myth is just that – a myth.)
Plus – how many persons are you willing to get shot confiscating these guns? Because sooner or later it’s gong to happen. Were I an officer in that jurisdiction, there is no way in hell I’d sigh up for that duty.
Moreover, you act as if any law can “prevent” something bad from happening. It can’t. Police do not prevent crime, they come and collect reports and put chalk marks around the body after its happened. We punish and remove offenders who have proven themselves to be violent. We don’t prosecute persons for crimes they “might” commit. (Well, usually. But that’s another story).
What this is really about is the same thing that TSA is about – conditioning the public. Just as TSA’s primary purpose is to inure the public to warrantless, random, suspicionless (and unconstitutional) searches, this program’s most important contribution is to get gun “confiscation” seen as acceptable and normal – for “those people.” Once up and running, just who are “those people” will begin to expand. It always does.
So what if it does? If the laws don’t work, why have them? Doesn’t it smack as stupid to do otherwise?
Because without them you can’t punish people who violate a law that doesn’t exist. And it does tend to slow people down.
I see that Heidi has become one of those people who refers to herself in the third person.
Only those for discussion, I thought the 9yo killing the range instructor with an Uzi would have been up for mention as well …..
What’s to discuss? Everyone involved fucked up, and Finagle reared his ugly head.
Exactly. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Greatest EVER non-Animals version of The House of the Rising Sun is this one, IMO:
Way ahead of their time.
hbfish, I second your opinion! Thanks!
Dude – Heidi keeps talking about herself!
I guess that’s what happens when you’re the secondary in a poly relationship and are a bit jealous of the primary…
I work in behavioral health. We have a sign similar to the one Dr. Silverman ignored, on the entry to our office. It annoys me, and every so often I think about suggesting they reverse that policy. And then I remember that one of the check boxes in the list of “Anti-social behaviors” on our intake assessment is next to the phrase, “Carries weapons.”
in other words, you’ve been peer pressured, and found it more weighty than the lesser probability of greater damage.
1. Heidi obviously has not been happy with the entire poly thing. This all brought it to a head.
2. As has already been pointed out, the those accused of abuse are already prohibited from possessing firearms by federal law. I like the fact that they actually have a place that people can store them at until matters are settled. But, I don’t think it will save a single person. Even if nobody could obtain firearms, there plenty of other weapons (improvised, legal, or not) that those accused of domestic violence can obtain. The incident that spurred this article had the guy hitting the woman’s car with his truck. There’s nbothing that would have stopped him from doing the same to her.
3. The Doctor – It’s kind of old news. I do appreciate the fact that the hospital is reviewing its policies. I hope this means they will have a more reasonable approach to employees to carrying firearms.
4. The Arizona thing – This was a completely preventable tragedy. Unfortunately, the instructor did not follow a good graduated approach to training the girl. When I train a new shooter, it is a graduated process:
Can they handle a “blue” gun (fake/toy) and follow all of the rules of forearms safety? I’ve actually refused to teach someone (an adult) because he could not follow the most basic rules at this step.
Start them with a 22LR (either pistol or rifle). I also limit their ammunition at first. Once they have shown adequate proficiency, we move to the next step.
Have them shoot either a 9mm handgun or 223 rifle. Again, I limit the ammunition at first. Once they have shown adequate proficiency and willingness, I move to the next step.
Allow them to shoot more powerful firearms (items that have more recoil and/or more difficult to control, like full auto firearms). Again, the ammunition in the weapon is limited until the shooter has proven that he/she can handle it. In the Uzi incident, there should have been 5 rounds (at most) in the magazine.
Let me add that part of the reason I foillow a graduated process is to make sure that the learner will enjoy shooting. Most of us have seen the videos where some new shooter (usually a small women) is handed some sort of high recoil firearm to shoot. And, the people who make the video laugh as the shooters either knocked on her ass or loses control of the firearm. At best, the results of this is that the shooter has less interest in shooting. To many times it has resulted in someone getting injured or killed.
Like this chap, then?
Yes, ecept I don’t teach children (to much liability involved).
Wow, is Mick on his period? He needs to shut up and enjoy his beer and steak, then pitch a hissy fit. Priorities people!
I agree, and he’s being a complete dickwad about the whole thing.
Can Heidi just leave already?
I could see people in the Audience having heart attacks if that death metal version of Rising Sun was done like that back then. That would have been a sight to see for sure. Very well made this was, yes!!!
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
*EMAIL — Get a Gravatar
NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
©2012-2014 Failure To Fire | Powered by WordPress with Easel
| Subscribe: RSS
| Back to Top ↑