Now you know.
An Idaho State University assistant professor with a concealed-carry gun permit shot himself in the foot with a semiautomatic handgun that accidentally discharged from inside his pocket in a chemistry classroom full of students, police said on Wednesday.
At least he only shot himself, and in the foot, ironically enough. What if he’d hit a student instead?
The professor has been identified; it was rather obvious already, given that the chemistry department only has one assistant professor.
I kind of suspect that this incident will be discussed at his tenure review. I think accidentally firing a gun in class ought to be an automatic fail, rather like getting into an accident during your driving test.
Clearly his foot should have been armed as a deterrent.
He really shot himself in the foot, eh?
@OptimalCynic: do stand-your-ground laws apply to armed feet?
Why would anyone with a brain keep any gun in their pocket?
It’s not a pencil.
@chigau
Maybe he’s a poet, and his gun is his pen. It always rhymes when one uses that cadence.
@Alex
Who better to stand their ground than FEET?
I was in the USA this one time (a decade ago or so), and the tv news was on in the hotel lobby before we were leaving. There was some guy on there who invented a mini shotgun that was disguised as a pen.
At least they cut him off as he began to recite his website address.
Arming the students, maybe? A high-school boy in Springfield, Missouri, had a gun in his backpack, and it fired a bullet into the ceiling, today, all on its own. That gun didn’t kill people, but that kid has a bullet hole in his permanent record.
it is worse then just carrying the gun in the pocket.
If I am not mistaken for a simi-auto pistol he had to have had a bullet in the chamber. the hammer had to be cocked and the safety off for the gun to fire.
no brains no head aches!
uncle frogy
I can’t believe PZ is against academic freedom.
Hypocrisy!
[obligatory /snark tag]
Concealed carry of a loaded semiautomatic gun in your pocket seems like a bad idea. isn’t the point of a holster partially so this is less likely to happen? It seems doubly stupid considering that the semiautomatic weapons have lighter trigger weights. With this level of incompetence I can’t believe anyone would trust him with a gun.
He’s finally found a way to break the “publish or perish” cycle: he’ll just perish.
Sugarfrosted: There are holsters intended to sit in a pocket loose, basically slipcovers for the muzzle and trigger, with no provision for belt loops, so it may have been in one. They seem like a pretty terrible idea to me, but I don’t bring guns to classrooms. Or he might have been an even bigger idiot than to bring a gun to a classroom in his pocket and had it in there without one, of course.
“With this level of incompetence I can’t believe anyone would trust him with a gun.”
You’d be amazed at what passes for safety training that qualifies one for a CCW permit in many places. Or you might not be. Regardless, the NRA has worked long and hard to break down barriers to idiots and the insufficiently trained owning and carrying deadly weapons anywhere they damn well please.
This is my rifle
This is my gun…
The solution is, of course, to arm his feet as well. Then he’ll be much safer!
“Guns are banned in areas of the physical science complex where there is nuclear research…” which of course is where The Terrorists will attack and where Good Guys With Guns are so desperately needed. To shoot themselves in the feet.
brianpansky:
penismightier.com?
Well, at least guns are banned in the part of the building where nuclear research is happening. Safety first.
This is for f***ing
this is for fun
Because there’s nothing in a chemistry department that could be dangerous when its container is broken…
(I understand your sarcasm, I just wanted to add something)
Inorganic chemist? Figures.
[/Interdisciplinary banter]
Louis
Shame he wasn’t a true responsible gun owner since we know that responsible gun owners never have accidents.
…like students…
Now, if only the CDC was collecting statistics on such misfires. Oh yeah, the NRA won’t let them do that, or use federal monies for a grant to do that. In other words, nobody can show how unsafe any type of carry is….
@Nerd
Sure. But do we really need a study to show that carrying a loaded semiautomatic in your pants with safety off is not a great idea? :D
Hatchetfish beat me to it!
To be fair—a bit—remember this is the media we’re talking about, so the details of the story are most likely inaccurate. Dollars-to-donuts, the Reuters reporter had no clue about firearms. It is just as possible that the professor kept his firearm in a waistband holster, which could be misconstrued as a “pocket”.
Or the guy is an idiot. If he really kept it in a pocket, that would be enough to disqualify him from owning a weapon for 5+ years and then only after taking a real course on firearm safety that involved passing a test that had a 70% failure rate. (The current ones have a 99.999% pass rate: only those who aren’t breathing fail).
And then there are really scary handguns that fire on their own when jostled: http://youtu.be/C9_YWNo1f-o?t=46s
Presumably with firelegs.
I attended the American Public Health Association conference in Indianapolis many years ago. Two of the conventiongoers were in the local Planet Hollywood bar when a guy bent over and his gun fell out of his shirt pocket, and discharged. The bullet went through the wrist of one of the APHAers, and struck the other in the flank. The next day, the police chief announced that the guy would not be charged because “he had a p’mit to carry the weapon.” Absolutely true. He has a pistol in his shirt pocket, loaded, with the safety off, and he shoots two people. Not a problem in Indianapolis.
Who will foot the bill for his injuries?
Looks like the shoe is on the other foot for these gun nuts.
A professor shot himself? My foot!
This may end up as another footnote among the list of gun related tragedies.
And of course….
Don’t shoot yourself in the foot when touting the second amendment.
Sorry. Couldn’t help but think of foot puns because of this nitwit.
To be contrarian: The gun fell out of his pocket, hit the floor, and fired; hitting two people with those slugs of lead. But can it really be said that He Shot 2 people? 2 people were hit, but it sounds like an accident, not intentional. To pull out the over used automobile analogies: if I park my car (inadequately) and after I get out of the car, it rolls, and squishes the person walking between it and the car behind. Can it really be said that I hit that person with my car? That person was hit by my car, and I am still responsible, by not adequately parking it, but I wasn’t even in the car, as that guy did not have his finger on the trigger. This is one of those situations that justifies “passive voice” vs. “active voice” to describe the tragedy. [and confuses the heck out of me. sorry to be contrarian]
But regardless, He had a permit to carry the weapon. But! Did he have a permit to DROP it?
That should be in the “gun code safety rules”, somewheres: “_Carry_ Your Gun / Do NOT Drop it!!!”
If the gun had been pointed at a student, we’d have a tragedy on our hands. The exact same behavior on on his part could have killed someone, and it wouldn’t be funny. He shouldn’t be laughed at as a kook. This isn’t a wacky story for us to chuckle at. We wouldn’t be snickering and cutting up about a drunk driver that barely missed a crowd of college kids. “Oops! What a dummy!”
This man should be in prison, and he should stay there a long time.
He carried a loaded, improperly secured gun into a CHEMISTRY LAB? If it was really a lab, or even a lecture hall that he brought chemicals to for demos, it seems to me that there was a pretty good chance there were substances around that are toxic, flammable, maybe even explosive. How did this guy survive a PhD in chemistry if he is so cavalier about safety?
Even if you believe in concealed carry on campus, which I don’t, you’d think certain areas would be off-limits.
Well, ya see, some of those “legal-pot” fumes wafted eastward from Washington state…
I kid, of course. This would never have happened if not for gays getting married in Gaysachusetts!
Each year for the rest of his working life, the new students will be told that their tutor is, “The silly bastard who shot himself in the foot back in 2014.” They’ll probably call him “Hoppy.”
Louis @20 is right, it’s breathing all those toxic heavy metals that make inorganic chemists the lovable wild-and-crazy bumblers that we are.
I often want to carry my gun to class, but have so far refrained because of what I know woud be irrestible temptation when faced with 300 undergrads asking for the millionth time “Will this be on the exam?”
This. You aren’t supposed to have a bullet in the chamber for safety reasons.
Some makes of pistols are notorious for a habit of spontaneously firing.
twas: I agree with your semantics, but it’s more like you parked your car, left it in neutral, and it rolled back when you took your foot off the brake. You didn’t hit the person, but you are responsible for the car hitting them.
Out here, if you are in an auto accident with fatalities, and you were at fault, you are frequently charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide.
If you were drunk or stoned, it sometimes goes up to murder.
Just saying it wasn’t deliberate but an accident is an excuse but it doesn’t excuse everything.
@unclefroggy 8, @raven35,
Permit me to clarify…a semiautomatic means it’s magazine-fed through the handle as opposed to a revolver. For a gun to have a bullet in the chamber and the hammer to be cocked to fire, the term is “single-action.” A double-action pistol is one in which the trigger can both pull back the hammer AND release it to strike the firing pin.
The third major type of pistol is striker-fired. These don’t have hammers at all (Glock and the Springfield XD series are two prominent types). However, more modern versions of these tend to have what are called “passive safeties,” which means they shouldn’t be allowed to be fired without a person actively gripping the pistol and pulling the trigger.
Regardless of terminology or type of weapon, this guy is an idiot for bringing a loaded gun into a chem lab and carrying it without a holster, and I’m thankful none of the students were hurt.
FREEEEEEDOOOM!!!
“My cause is just… my will is strong… and my gun is very, very large.”
What the fuck.
“Top neuroscientist arrested for taking loaded AR-15 assault rifle to Arizona airport ‘to get a cup of coffee’” – “However, he wasn’t cuffed because he had the gun, police say, but for where he was pointing it.” And also, “the Johns Hopkins-trained researcher has done almost the exact thing at least once before.”
Warning: the link leads to the Daily Fail. There’s a video on autoplay at the bottom of the article, which is near the top of the interminable page.
From the Identified link in the OP:
Gee, carrying an unload weapon has zero chance of an accident. That is the point of gun safety rules. Avoid what gun nuts call accidents, which are usually carelessness on the part of individuals not treating their weapons properly, and not paying attention to where they are.
I’ve been going over lab safety rules for the last several days. Looks like I might need to add one.
A gun in his pocket? So I guess he wasn’t glad to see her.
I find it interesting that you’re assuming the professor has lack of firearms safety, though it could honestly be a complete accident. No one here knows the condition of the gun and what led up to it firing. I will withhold prejudice.
David Marjanović @41
Open-carry isn’t illegal in that part of the airport, but threat with a deadly weapon is always a crime. He wasn’t breaking the law until he points the weapon at people. Granted I have nothing against open-carry if it’s legal, however that said, I’m definitively against the owning of assault rifles and high capacity clips. We don’t live in a war zone and there’s no practical need for these weapons let alone open-carry, they suck at self defense and are more likely to injure everyone in addition to your target. And yes I have been present in a business where a person was open-carrying in Wal-Mart and I didn’t feel that it was a dangerous situation. The person was calm and wasn’t drawing attention to the gun, and everyone else in the store reacted in a similar way, many oblivious of the weapon even being there.
Wes Aaron @46:
Likewise, there is no reason to open carry. “Because the 2nd Amendment allows me to” is not a reason. Right wing or libertarian protestations to the contrary, there isn’t danger lurking behind every corner.
Also, Wes Aaron:
Given that the firearm went off in his pocket and shot his own foot, I’d say he either lacked adequate knowledge of firearm safety, or he ignored proper firearm safety protocol. No less than the NRA has a list of gun safety tips. #3-
I suppose it’s possible the professor had the gun loaded bc he was ready to use it…on his foot.
There is the reality that a firearm in his possession discharged, wounding him. Prima facie evidence of negligence. That doesn’t happen when real safety rules are followed.
My son showed me a video on YouTube of a gun instructor shooting himself in the foot, so these things can happen to just about anybody. It’s a good reason not to mess with them.
I would assume even if a person has a permit to carry a gun, they are responsible for any damage done by it whether accident or not. If they can’t be prosecuted for any harm they do, they can always be sued.
A la David Marjanović @#41, AlterNet ran this story yesterday about an old white guy with a rifle on a street in Michigan. The point of their story is how carefully the police handled the situation, rather than just shoot him as they might be expected to do if an old black man was on the street with a gun and flipping them off.
I’m really impressed with Idaho’s “enhanced” concealed carry program. Do they purposely teach not using a holster so the trigger will be exposed? This shooting is no “accident” and no reputable handgun fires accidentally when dropped. (Yes, there are disreputable gun manufacturers — Jennings, Bryco, Raven, Lorcin, and the list goes on.) Does Idaho also teach leaving loaded firearms on tables where kids are playing so the owner will have quick access?
Among the worst places to carry a loaded pistol without a holster are in a purse, pocket, backpack, fanny pack, stuffed in your belt, or loose in a vehicle. Of my list of cautionary tales, one of my favorites is http://gawker.com/5828944/arizona-man-accidentally-shoots-his-penis-off (with his girlfriend’s pink pistol, no less).
I have been pushing for effective gun legislation for years (ineffectively, it would seem). It would prevent “accidental” and “regrettable” shootings as a starter and require real safety training and responsibility before even buying a gun. Responsibility seems to be the last thing any politician wants in legislation.
Gun fans after an intentional shooting occurs:
Gun fans after a non-fatal unintentional shooting occurs:
Gun fans after a fatal unintentional shooting:
#50 — Robro
You found one of my many other cautionary tales. An instructor, of all people should know not to touch the trigger until the gun is aimed (something that is often ignored in quick-draw competitions). It can cost you your life as it did for Alexander Hamilton. He cheated by using the “single set” feature of his brother-in-law’s Wogdon dueling pistols, which converts the gun to having a hair trigger. He touched the trigger before he had aimed, and Aaron Burr took his time to finish the job.
One of my other tales is of an officer who was using a holster and doing almost everything right, but he was also using a gun without an external safety (a Glock 23, if I remember correctly). When he took his gun out of the holster and then replaced it, the trigger caught on his jacket drawstrings, and when he tried freeing the drawstrings, the gun fired, hitting him in the leg. Using a gun with the safety off or no external safety at all requires diligence beyond the capabilities of most mere humans.
well, technically it was surely gross negligence, since every modern firearm I have ever seen has this little thing called a “safety”.
if the safety was engaged, there is no way it would have gone off in his pocket.
it’s gross negligence on multiple levels, and if these states are going to have open carry laws, those laws should include provisions for removing that right in cases of gross negligence just like this.
I’m betting none of them do.
right? I should say “privilege” instead, as that’s really what it is. got fuck all to do with rights.
I detest living in a state with open carry laws, and the stupid rednecks who think it’s cute to carry guns where there are innocent bystanders. If I am shopping in a store where one walks in, I will leave my basket and walk out, letting the store employees know why as I pass. I feel safer shopping in the commissary on base, where there are strict rules that no firearms are permitted in the stores.
If I still had a teen in the house who was choosing a college, this would be one of my considerations. If guns are allowed to be carried on campus by anyone other than campus security, my kid would not be attending.
#46 Wes Aaron
Open carry always draws attention to the gun.
yup, the professor who shoots himself in the foot makes an EXCELLENT case for why anyone would want to avoid sending their kids to a school with open carry.
it’s obviously NOT FUCKING SAFE.
from the article:
uh, those 20 kids in his class, by definition, were indeed in imminent danger, albeit unknowingly.
SUCH IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH CONCEALED CARRY.
*rips hair out*
fucking idiots.
fuck me, so they still make legal pistols with no safeties?
soooo glad i got out of the US.
ck @52:
It’s sad (and funny, and pathetic) that many gun owners see legislation to regulate guns as punishment, rather than attempts to ensure that gun owners are accountable and responsible for the deadly weapons they seek to own. Even more so when you look at the actual legislation being proposed. They whine and complain about the thought of having to register their firearms, complete firearm safety courses, store their firearms correctly, and/or undergo background or psychological testing. And yet the benefits to society outweigh the minimal hassle that such legislation would create.
if we treated cars like guns… imagine how many more people would be dead in automobile involved incidents.
In the foot? This would not have happened if the US had switched to the metric system.
Ichthyic wrote:
Don’t be ridiculous. A drunk man should be have the right to point his shotgun at a family without the police taking it away from him. It’s nothing like a car, which can seriously injure or kill someone if operated by someone with impared reflexes and decision making ability! And if you don’t agree, you’re an evil gun grabber!
yup, that’s me, commie pinko american traitor.
color me red, comrade!
:)
HA!
win!
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Shots-fired-during-road-rage-incident-in-the-Far-5738856.php
Here’s another shining example of a responsible licensed to concealed-carry gun owner.
Stories like this are an everyday occurrence in my local paper.
We’re a middle-aged couple driving around in a Prius in a town full of rednecks who hate anyone who cares about the environment, so I don’t exactly feel safe on the roads here. We don’t dare advertise our political or Atheist views with a bumper sticker either.
Had some guy pull a gun on me while I was driving up the hill on Highway 5 out of Los Angeles.
there were 5 lanes for him to go into, 4 where he easily could go around me.
i got a gun pointed at me because I was driving too slow… in the slow lane.
I’m trying to envision the circumstances under which a gun could go off in someone’s pocket WITHOUT extreme negligence.
aside from putting it in a pocket to begin with, which is negligence.
no safety?
negligent
safety off?
negligent
gun in such poor condition it could randomly fire?
negligent.
fuck you Wes, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or deliberately disingenuous.
so.. the only thing you reason on is whether something is illegal or not.
good to know.
Dammit, David Marjanović(#40)!
Put a warning on links to TVTropes. I have to work tomorrow.
Now this is a professor Kevin Sorbo is fit to play in a movie.
If you think automobile owners are held to higher standards then you either live in a fair weather state or have never looked at the accident statistics of the first snow day. It snows in my state every year, and yet every year on the first day of snow we have large numbers of accidents caused anywhere from bald/ poorly maintained tires and/ or bad driving, and yet no one is going to jail for having bald tires on their car in winter? This is a 2000=lbs of steel moving at speed with poorly maintained tires and yet this isn’t considered dangerous enough to punish the driver!? The only response we get is you better not be late for work.
Ichthyic @59
We don’t know what caused the gun to discharge. Given that no one was injured with the exception of carrier, I can see how one could reach that conclusion.
@60
Maybe you missed it, but some safeties on pistols are poorly designed for CC and can be disengaged with a mild rub or bump. So it doesn’t matter which country you live in their still manufactured and sold.
@62
Considering that in many cities including my own there is an ordinance against discharging a firearm in city limits, this individual wouldn’t have been let off so easily. At minimum there is a fine and at maximum there is jail time. So many cities that allow open carry don’t allow you to ever fire the weapon, But I’m sure if it is proven to be in self defense they waive this charge.
@68
I would recommend taking the plate # and report it as being threatened with a deadly weapon. If you have time and a cell phone dial 911 and report it. I’m pretty sure that would’ve gotten their attention when an officer pulls them over or they get a summons in the mail.
Tony @47-48
You may feel secure enough and feel no need to carry, but you’d have to admit with all the fear mongering the right does, it’s no shock they feel unsafe and must carry their gun to be ready for the bad man around the corner. Even if it isn’t that far fetched, a person may be the victim of gun violence, so if it isn’t outlawed it would seem that people in this state are willing to let people decide for themselves what is safe (many states don’t recognize the second amendment and it isn’t legal to carry in these states, so your argument is off base if it hinges just on the second amendment).
Those safety tips from the NRA state that if your prepared to use the weapon it needs to be ready so… they change nothing since conceal carry is considered to be ready to use the weapon at any given time. We don’t know the condition of his gun, it could be the safety was set before he concealed it and during his normal activities it became disengaged. And the second part is for cleaning the gun safely. Well he’s not going to be cleaning his gun in class. Part of conceal carry is you cannot show off the weapon, ever . If he didn’t have the gun in a pocket holster then yes he would demonstrate ignorance towards gun safety, but that doesn’t mean he in any way had intent to be dangerous.
In a factory, if an “accident” occurs it is either an unsafe action or an unsafe environment. There will be either retraining or a change of the environment. Chalking it up as a rare accident is unacceptable.
Wes Aaron @73:
Higher standards? WTF are you on about?
Ichthyic was talking about treating cars like we do guns.
Speaking of cars, it’s a good thing auto insurance is a thing, just in case of accidents. Wonder how many gun owners have firearm insurance?
First off, GODDAMIT, stop introducing the idea of outlawing guns. That’s not part of the fucking conversation, and you fucking gundamentalists *ALWAYS* try to throw that in. It’s not realistic. It’s not feasible. For all that I’d support that, It. Isn’t. Going. To. Happen. Anytime. Soon. Until such time as it has a ghost of a chance, fucking fuck off with that fucking shit!
Secondly, fuck you for your open carry apologetics. People do not need guns in a school. They don’t need guns in a church. They don’t need guns in a bar. Open carry allows people who own guns to go places where people with guns should not go. I mean FFS, a man open carrying in GA left a restaurant/bar and his gun discharged, killing a woman across the fucking street! Because carrying a fucking deadly weapon into a restaurant/bar is a totes reasonable thing to do.
Third, my security has fuck all to do with not owning a gun. I don’t like guns, I’d rather not be in possession of a killing weapon bc I don’t want to kill anyone, and I don’t want to frighten people around me. Guns frighten me. I’ve seen far too many idiots with guns, too many so-called “responsible gun owners” who turn out to be not-so responsible, too many tragedies to want to ever own such a weapon. It’s designed to fucking kill or destroy things. That’s not me. I’m not a killer, and I don’t enjoy destroying things. I don’t want anything to do with guns, and I wish to FSM more people felt like that, rather than glorifying the goddamn things like you gundamentalists do. I’m treating them with the recognition that they aren’t toys, but rather tools that can take my life or the lives of others, and that’s not something to take lightly. Far too many people *do* take them lightly-those gun worshipping fuckwits with delusions of John Wayne running through their head and a tattoo of the 2nd Amendment on their ass.
I don’t know why I’m even going into this because you’re a gundamentalist who’s going to defend the 2nd fucking Amendment like it’s a fundamental human right, but here goes (again): yes, I recognize that the Right fear mongers, but my point is that people need to take better stock of the *actual* dangers they are in, rather than believing what they are told. These people you talk about who are feeling unsafe…do they even do a cost/benefit analysis before buying a gun (and I’m not talking financial)? Do they even think-rationally-about whether they need a gun? What do they actually need it for? How much danger are they actually in? Not how much danger do they *think* they’re in. If they’re going to buy a weapon that is designed for and highly effective at killing people, they damn well should have a good reason to do so (yes, I know this isn’t how things ARE; I’m speaking about how things OUGHT to be).
God, I can’t even…
This is what you do every fucking time a gun thread comes up. Gun apologetics. It’s like you bleed the 2nd Amendment. All the rationality you display otherwise goes WHOOSH, right out the window. You’re making excuses to fucking justify this guys fuck up. Rather than holding him accountable, you’re trying to find ways to excuse this accident, to minimize the impact of it. A deadly weapon discharged in a classroom setting, and people like you have become so inured to these things that you don’t bat an eyelash. Rather than questioning the wisdom in bringing a gun to a classroom, or actively fighting the gun culture in the US, you’d rather take the time to make excuses for an irresponsible gun owner.
Wes Aaron #73
Pardon me for pointing out the fucking obvious, but whether they think it’s safe is not the point since they’re not the only people endangered by their choice to carry a killing-machine.
Okay, Wes Aaron:
You are on and on about responsible gun owners and the tyranny of violating the 2nd amendment, etc.
What I want to know is whether or not you would really put your money where your mouth is.
Say that there’s a series of armed robberies in a midsize city. They’re bad. People get hurt. Take it for granted in this hypothetical that this a truly exceptional situation. Some enterprising criminologists have done some work and have come to the conclusion that on important criteria X, Y, & Z, this is the worst crime spree in at least the last 100 years of US history, and probably ever. There aren’t enough cops to go around. So, congress decides to put the very, very safest gun handlers they can find in the area for the deterrent effect: elite troops of light infantry (delta force, seals, what-have-you). The only way to effectively utilize this deterrent is for the troops to be rotated around, spending nights in every single home, though in random order. They utilize the best in firearm safety – never pointing a barrel at anyone or anything they don’t intend to shoot (except, obviously, the floor). They pay folks for the inconvenience. They utilize electronic trigger locks so that the guns can’t be taken away and so that if a service member does commit a crime, the service member can’t claim the ballistic match happened b/c the gun was taken away by a bad guy, etc.
Would you support this effort, why or why not? What are the risks that we, as a society, should and shouldn’t be willing to run here?
Wes Aaron
It’s incredible to me that you apparently think this justifies….something. I really know fuck all about gun safety or NRA recommendations or how safeties are supposed to work etc. But you just blithely said “oh maybe the safety was on and it became disengaged during normal activities” as if that’s just par for the fucking course and you’re OK with it. You have some industrial grade blinders on about guns, jesus fuck.
@Seven of Mine:
Including the criterion:
in one’s process of selecting a firearm for purchase is not something that ResponsibleGunOwners™ do!
They didn’t own the gun at that point, duh, so why should they be responsible then?
This seems appropriate:
via Stonekettle Station
(this is part 1)
Gundamentalists seem to want people in society to “arm up”. Bear both your arms, and then some. As if guns solve any damn problem.
Part 2 continued from my #80:
And yet gundamentalists will drone on and on about how we are making a mountain out of a molehill. They’ll talk about how this is “one incident” as if to project their ignorance and idiocy onto us. *They* are the ones not paying attention to the gun deaths occurring all around us. *We* are the ones paying attention to the gun violence and wanting to curtail it (I’d love to see it end, actually). We are the ones who realize this shit is not a series of one offs unrelated to a wider culture of gun idolization and violence combined with near religious fervor over the 2nd Amendment. You fucks, like Wes Aaron (and I’m sure we’ll have some of our regular gun fondling fuckfaces wander in here soon enough to join him) are the ones with your damn heads in the sand. So scared of non-existent threats that you’re arming yourselves and helping foster a culture where people feel they need to arm themselves, never realizing that you’re helping put guns in the hands of people who should never own a gun.
Like the shitstain Martin Zale.
Wes… you’re a moron.
what else is there left to say?
so… negligence
uh.. just…; no. you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about here. even the NRA recommends using safeties, proper holsters, keeping your gun in good condition, etc.
fuck me, you are either the dumbest, or the most dishonest, person posting on Pharyngula.
interesting how he got it exactly backwards, isn’t it.
you know, there is approximately one gun in the US for every single person in it.
I guess they decided on that instead of “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage”
imagine that Oprah episode where she gave everyone in the audience a car… and instead it was a gun.
“look under your seats! yes! a brand new gun, just for you!”
Tony @75
You’re the one who brought up the second amendment. I was simply stating that states don’t have to recognize this so your argument is flawed here. Open carry has little to none to do with the second amendment and more to do with what a community deems safe. Don’t accuse me of trying to turn this into a banning conversation. I have done nothing more than give legit reason for how a person could in fact make this mistake without ill intent or blatant ignorance.
You seem to be confounding the problem. I’m simply pointing out that assuming the person is incompetent or ignorant is a claim that the evidence doesn’t seem to support. Without knowing the specifics of the gun he was carrying and how it was carried, any claims made that the individual acted with gross negligence are unsupported.
As for the statement about cars, it was a general statement to those who think we enforce automobiles with more rigid laws. There are a lot of issues with cars poorly maintained and there’s definitely more of them than guns. Tons moving at high speed with poor breaks, tires, and condition, leads to many accidents (many fatal or worse) and yet individuals of these vehicles are rarely punished for their dangerous practices. As for guns, showing a gun to a person in public can land you in jail, let alone pointing one at someone is punishable with prison time. Open carry doesn’t give anyone the right to act like a jackass. Even if open carry is legal if you act like a threat you will be handled as one. I didn’t direct it at you which is why I addressed people specifically at the end of the post so it might be easier to read.
Crip Dyke @77
Ahh yes the Judge Dredd style guns. Oh did I mention I read Judge Dredd, the satire is definitely thought provoking. If we could create a safety for guns that would prevent it from being fired by anyone other than the person issued the gun this would in fact reduce stolen weapons being used for illegal means. I actually have no problem with this safety feature. Now as far as people you don’t know spending a night in your house, well I’m not sure that this would be effective and may in fact create a much larger burden. It would seem more likely they would deputize citizens to fill the gaps in law enforcement provided they cannot deploy the National Guard, this is the usual practice in these dire situations. Also could see a nationwide home search if more drastic measures are needed. Granted these are worst case scenario, but if it the public wasn’t safe let’s say a small militia (large enough to require military involvement) doing this, then it would be Martial Law for all involved (no civil rights, enforced curfew, and no right to trial).
Seven of Mine @78
Please look into conceal carrying handguns this is not as uncommon as you may think. Many guns were designed to carry in full holster and the holsters for conceal carry can interfere with the safety. This is why when you CC you need to research the weapon to make sure it is safe for this practice and the holster is designed to work with the gun selected. Not all guns are made well and some have safeties that can easily be disengaged.
bigwhale @74
This is somewhat off topic, but I still have something to add. Yes business has the model that all accidents can be prevented (if I remember the numbers according to research 95 or 98% of all accidents are behavior related and therefore a person is to blame, so to save the company money if they can prove the persons actions led to their accident then they only pay less than half the cost for their injury). But in practice this method is used to blame the employee for their work conditions many times beyond their control so the business can save money on the employees medical expenses. I have seen many good people fired because under stressful conditions they made a mistake such as hurrying or missing some detail. I love the saying, nothing we do is worth getting injured over. (The double talk is mind numbing.) And yet this same individual will be constantly told to hurry up, work faster if you want to keep your job. I won’t get into insurance coverage but it’s the worst I’ve ever seen it.
@ Wes Aaron
It’s also why you’re full to the brim of absolute shit when you say:
He either didn’t have the safety on or was conceal carrying a gun with a safety that could easily disengaged. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
The gun discharged due to the fact it was loaded in a public area, which is inherently unsafe. Gun safety rules say the gun should be unloaded when in public. If not unloaded, then no bullet under the hammer. The fuckwit was doing an unsafe practice. He doesn’t need more training, he needs a clue-by-four to be applied until he understands gun safety, which is never, ever, imperil others due to your stupidity.
Wes Aaron, you are a stupid idjit if you can’t see the obvious, and try to downplay an incident that should never have happened.
You are one stupid fuckwit. His gun discharged in public. Prima facie evidence of an unsafe gun practice being used. Gun safety should be close to absolute.
@Wes Aaron, #86:
Way to dodge the question.
you can make up your own scenarios if you like. I had one simple one. You seem to be terrible at comprehension.
For instance, I specified:
You return:
WTF? How is a search in Dutch Bay, Alaska going to help us combat a armed robbery in OurFairCIty in OurFairState?
You wax ineloquently about “Judge Dredd” style gun safety mechanisms in a wind up for this truly insightful response:
Really? You have no problem with a safety that works? Oh, good!
Except, I didn’t think you were a recklessly murderous thug who would consider rejecting a magically and perfectly effective safety mechanism. It is quite informative that you believe that that is even a question on the table. Holy cannibal crackers, batman, you dodge the hypothetical to talk about comic books all so you can sagaciously inform us that, yes, all things considered you would be in favor of not only fewer murders, but also no seven year old kids accidentally shooting their friends or family to death while playfully brandishing Mommy’s gun.
Quite a statement you’ve made there.
I imagine it would be almost as interesting if you addressed the actual question I posed. For instance I said:
which you describe as:
You know what martial law isn’t? Congress deciding pretty much anything.
Further, where the fuck is a curfew in the hypothetical. Congress thought a deterrent was in order and decided on a course of action using the military as that deterrent by housing them in the at-risk area. Nothing in the hypothetical gave the military the power to order people around. Where in the hypothetical did you find the repeal of the 6th and 7th amendments?
Do you just say any fucking thing that comes into your head? Do you have a filter at all? Are you in any way capable of responding to the actual scenario presented – the best guns, used by the best people, as a deterrent against crime through random placement?
Yeah, I’m against the removal of all rights to trial guaranteed in the US constitution as well, but, once again, ***I didn’t know that was even up for debate***.
Why don’t you just go ahead and cross that intersection there? Traffic? No, don’t sweat it. An 18 wheeler headed down the street? Don’t worry, it’s just a ClueTruck downsized to meet your minimum requirements. Go ahead. Step on out. I’m sure it won’t hurt much.
And yet when **people** are fired, no seven year olds are killed by a ricochet to the throat.
you don’t even have to go to the hospital with a hole in your foot.
Crip Dyke @89-90
Did you even read the source you posted? Habeas corpus is the right to a fair trial. What part of suspension did you miss? Suspension of civil rights and curfews imposed is the same as no civil rights and imposed curfew. Ya I do know what martial law is. This is why I was adamantly against this action in Ferguson (it would have added more oppression on oppressed people), it’s used to restore order and that’s pretty much it. Law enforcement would be mildly affected if at all, compared to those living in these areas. Please look through your own source. The examples should be self evident.
Maybe your unfamiliar with the gun the judges use in Judge Dredd. They are only usable by a person with the correct DNA. So only a certain judge can use his weapon. It’s not magical. I think this pretty much fits the specifics of the gun you were boasting.
I really tried to answer the question it just didn’t add up to a logical response. And the nationwide home search I mentioned would have to do with the crimes happening in random places so enforcement is unable to contain these criminal actions to an area.
Seven of Mine @87
Either you missed it or are trying really hard not to see it. We don’t know if the professor knew that conceal carrying a gun in an open pocket would increase it’s chances of misfire. Hell we don’t know if he had a pocket holster, the condition of the gun, or any of the specifics of how it misfired? So how do prove your claim he acted with intent or gross negligence? You don’t, and that’s why I’m not being inconsistent.
Wes Aaron #86
Carrying a loaded weapon with either a poorly made or damaged safety mechanism, or with the safety off, doesn’t constitute gross negligence? If not, why not?
Fuckwit, carrying a loaded weapon in public is inherently unsafe. No professor should be carrying period. Why do they need a gun during a lecture or lab? Misfires are caused by negligence. Misfires in public should be a crime.
Quit comparing guns to cars. Try potent chemicals, where one needs to follow SOPs to keep everybody safe. Not only for the operators, but the neighborhood.
Curfews may indeed frequently be imposed under martial law.
However, WHERE THE FUCK IN THE HYPOTHETICAL IS MARTIAL LAW CONTEMPLATED?
Since the action taken is by the legislative branch, and even wikipedia, not exactly known for technical accuracy, says, AND I FUCKIN QUOTE:
Where, in my previous comment, did the military replace the legislative branch? The military is clearly subject to the legislative branch as FUCKING CONGRESS made the decision to authorize the action.
You can say all you like about martial law. You may even say factually correct things about martial law – almost certainly on accident given your inability to differentiate between an act of congress and MARTIAL FUCKING LAW. [Which inability, by the by, makes your profoundly failed attempt to condesplain habeas corpus to me even more egregious.]
But they have no relevance to the hypothetical unless MARTIAL FUCKING LAW is in the hypothetical.
Do you have a place to cite in the hypothetical where
curfews are imposed?
civil law is suspended?
civil rights are denied?
habeas corpus is banned?
military law is applied to civilians in military courts?
Cuz otherwise it seems like you’re going off in Judge Dredd dystopian-fantasy land and not addressing what is in the actual hypothetical before us?
Oh, and speaking of Judge Dredd:
Oh! The comic book said DNA? It really used those three letters in that order?
Well OBVIOUSLY the comic book is presenting an existing technology, not some fantasy technology indistinguishable from magic. If only you had specifically mentioned the words “comic book” in conjunction with “DNA” before I would have realized how inappropriate it is to use “magic” in describing a hypothetical technology whose sole purpose in the hypothetical was to allow us to focus on the danger of the criminals and not any potential danger from accidental discharge or theft of weapon.
My FSM, I had no idea that the technology is how so concrete and realized it appears in an ACTUAL COMIC BOOK where the author even describes how it works: DNA!!!!!!111!!elebenty!1
Please forgive me for not realizing how serious, and how easily and commercially available, comic book DNA technology really is.
Summing up:
Boasting?
Boasting?
Do you even know what that word means? I’m not proud of my ability to hypothesize away one safety issue so as to focus on other issues. I’m not claiming to have invented it. I’m not, using an unrelated meaning, waving the gun around in an obvious manner. I’m not, in a more limited version of that definition, claiming to own a piece of such tech. I’m not doing that because the technology in question (<abbr title="A phrase that needs to be used a bit more often."pace Judge Dredd) does not in fact exist.
Now, concede that you are an idiot with a total inability to distinguish acts of congress from martial law, a total inability to resist reading shit in to a paragraph that exists nowhere in that paragraph, and a total inability to actually respond to the questions presented (do I need to present them again, or have you figured out how to scroll up?), BUT with a quite impressive ability to distinguish comic book technology from magic
OR
Actually answer the the questions presented.
Wes Aaron
How fucking stupid do you think people are? He either knew it or he didn’t, right? If he knew and did it anyway that’s negligence. If he didn’t know, that’s negligence because he failed to make sure he chose a gun suitable for concealed carry.
Is a gun discharging while in someone’s pocket consistent with the gun being in good working condition, wisely chosen for the way it’s being carried, and all appropriate safety measures followed? If no, there’s your answer.
Wes Aaron
Another question just inserted itself into my possibly over-curious mind:
Would you be protesting his possible-non-negligence if a student had been killed in this “accident”?
Don’t teach gun-wankers to act responsibly. Teach students to avoid misfires.
Wes@whatever
I’m going to ignore all your semantic horseshit and point out one thing:
There is no such thing as an accident with a firearm.
There is only negligence. Period. End of story. The owner/possessor is directly responsible for the state of a firearm at any given time. Any Negligent Discharge is a direct result of the owner/possessor NOT respecting the power and lethality of a modern firearm (which are utterly massive in historical context). Any argument to the contrary is the above-mentioned semantic horseshit. Please cease your equine-feces propagation in defense of a fucking jackass who endangered his students.
NEGLIGENT Discharge, NOT accidental discharge.
Wes Aaron, please provide an example of a “specific” of the gun and how it was carried that would result in a misfire that would NOT be a case of gross negligence on the part of the individual.
Only if such a specific actually exists would your statement that “without knowing the specifics of the gun he was carrying and how it was carried, any claims made that the individual acted with gross negligence are unsupported” be valid.
If no such specifics exist, then the very fact that it misfired is evidence enough of gross negligence on the part of the individual.
Thus, your third sentence is a POSITIVE fact claim. The onus is therefore on YOU to provide an example of such a “specific”.
Obviously, concealed-carryers must always carry TWO guns.
The second gun is there to deter the first gun from misfiring.
Wes Aaron @ 91:
Isn’t willful ignorance a form of negligence? If you have a machine capable of easily killing, how is it even remotely acceptable not to be familiar with its weaknesses?
If I had a dog, and this dog had previously lunged in an aggressive manner at other dogs but not actually bitten them due to being behind a fence, and I took that dog to an off-leash dog park and it bit another dog, I don’t think I’m free of responsibility just because the dog had not actually set teeth in another dog before. What is it about guns that permits their owners to act free of any sort of sense and still not be held responsible?
Daz, Seven of Mine
Gross negligence or negligence in general refers to generally knowing better, but still acting with negligence. You cannot prove he was negligent or had any intent within the story. It is all assertions unsupported by the evidence. Until you can prove he had knowledge prior that the gun was in poor repair, or that the safety would disengage easily, or that carrying it openly in his pocket would cause a misfire, or any other possibility you want to add. Until it demonstrates that he was negligent (meaning he had knowledge that it was dangerous) then asserting it is fallacious.
Call me what you will, but until you address the claim, there is no further argument.
Cryp Dyke @94
I tried to consider all options since the hypothetical didn’t really match up with the action proposed. Martial Law would be enacted if it is considered too dangerous to not enact martial law. So if deputized citizens cannot help restore order and the National Guard has failed then martial law may be the only option left on the table if there is too great a risk to not act. I don’t see the military wasting these efforts of special forces (airborne, delta force, green berets, rangers, recon, navy seals, or other elite trained soldiers) on law enforcement.
Since martial law is basically the suspension of habeas corpus, right to trial (you can be imprisoned without trial), and (is usually accompanied by suspension of civil rights and curfew). In order for martial law to happen congress must pass this action, it is a final option to restore order. Oh and the military tribunal court is for court martial, and under martial law citizens can face this punishment.
Maybe the gun from Judge Dredd seems too far fetched to you (I was trying to come up with good analogous to the safety you proposed so I could better grasp and apply the concept). It was not my intent to dodge or ignore the hypothetical, but to apply actions that are commonly used in these scenarios, hence deputizing citizens, then calling on the National Guard if the danger is still too great, and there really is only one option left if the National Guard isn’t enough.
Wes Aaron
How about you just directly answer a fucking question?
Is the gun discharging while in the professor’s pocket consistent with him having chosen an appropriate gun for the use he was putting it to, ensuring it was in proper working order, and taking all applicable safety precautions? This is a yes or no question.
If your answer is no, how is that not negligent?
Wes Aaron #102
Bullshit.
Knowledge that a possibly dangerous machine is in an unsafe condition is not necessary for negligence to be shown. Negligence consists in not checking the condition of a possibly dangerous machine.
Answer the fucking question.
His gun discharged. He was negligent, or it wouldn’t have discharged, as there were safety rules he didn’t follow. Period, end of story sophist bullshitter. Time for you to shut the fuck up. Your idiocy is becoming legendary….
Also, arbitrarily defining “negligent” so it excludes failure to even know how to choose an appropriate gun, ensure it’s in proper working order, or what safety precautions should be taken as you did in #102 is bullshit.
Oh, I see. Your problem is that you can’t imagine congress responding to scared constituents in any way other than the way Wes Aaron would respond to scared constituents. So instead of answering whether you do or don’t support Congress’ action, you ignore the question and say, “Since I wouldn’t do that action if I were congress, then even in this hypothetical, the imaginary congress quite obviously didn’t do this action, even though it says so in this hypothetical. So any actual considerations about the risks and rewards of firearms as a defensive measure or what it means to have arms or armed people in one’s home don’t need to happen. Because STFU, that’s why.”
Perhaps you’ve heard of the argument from ignorance? But then again…
And yet, in this hypothetical constructed by me, a mere crippled lesbian, martial law was not enacted (also, martial law is almost never “enacted”, or it wouldn’t be martial law, duh).
How can this be? For she is the Kwisatz Haderach!
Of course, I grant you that you certainly have the Power to Randomly Capitalize the phrase Martial Law, so even if you aren’t the Kwisatz Haderach, you’re something else.
Nope. Congress could commit seppuku. OurFairCity could go all Massada on their own asses, levi-ing the guilty parties conspicuously not dead. Congress could statutorily temporarily repeal assault, battery, and trespass to chattels as causes of action within the boundaries of the city, then shut down the airport and blockade the city – without otherwise changing the law inside the city or putting a military commander in charge of the city itself.
If you’re determined to avoid the questions posed by the hypothetical, you can get a lot more creative than martial law.
Ah, yes. You see the guys who stockpile the guns openly defying the laws passed by congress, just because they don’t like the laws that congress passed and because they have the guns. How …reasonable… of you. No, you certainly don’t have any prior authoritarian bent that makes you prone to
being quite dangerous and a raging assholeprefer martial law to a law with which you disagree, to the extent that you literally can’t imagine the people with guns obeying congress.No, no. Don’t get up. I’m not backing away. I’m just being thinking about things other than the shuffling of my feet. Am I really that much closer to a lockable door and an emergency phone than I was thirty seconds ago? My. How odd. What a coincidence.
holy cannibal crackers, I already told you this was wrong.
Is that you trying to equate right to trial with habeas corpus again, right after I told you that they aren’t the same thing at all? Really?
Hey, have you ever seen jugglers pass juggled objects back and forth? Because you could stand in front of a juggler of operating chainsaws, naked, with a 15″ hard on, waiting for your chance to snatch the chainsaws out of the air and begin juggling them yourself… and fewer people in your audience would cringe than when you do this idiotic bullshit.
Throwing in an and before a parenthetical ends the sentence? You even hate grammar laws?!?
Because if an army marches into town, arrests people arbitrarily, imposes a curfew, and strikes down people who will become more powerful than the army can possibly imagine, because they have the imagination of Wes fucking Aaron, that isn’t martial law? Because it’s not martial law until the army is acting under the authority of and according to the laws passed by congress?
Oh, yes. We know. Never has martial law been used as anything other than a last resort. We know this because no one has ever tried anything after trying martial law. Duh.
No, the military tribunal IS a court martial.
Look, do you even know what a court martial is?
Uh, I suppose it was obvious you don’t. Look, a trial is not a punishment. A trial is a hearing held for the purpose of…
Actually, it’s easier if you just don’t mention military tribunals.
Or courts martial.
And don’t say anything about martial law.
Or congress.
Or “enactment”.
Or anything generally about how laws are made or what makes a law.
And for the sake of all that isn’t holy, don’t even think about mentioning habeas corpus.
Or curfews.
Definitely nothing about grammar.
Or Judge Dredd.
Look, I… Oh, hell. On second thought…
It can be fetched from as close as your rectum or from a distance as great as that between your brain and wherever you keep its second neuron.
The point isn’t that it’s far fetched. The point is that it’s FUCKING FICTIONAL and you thought it was a good idea to point out to me that the gun in question isn’t best described as a magical, failsafe system for preventing accidental discharge and/or misuse, because it’s not magical, dammit, it’s comic-book-DNA-technology-which-is-totally-different-for-realziez!
I assert that the tech in Judge Dredd works because, unknown to the Judges, a summoner of demons places a tiny demon inside each gun, and the superficially technological safety is mere smoke and mirrors to hide the existence of magic from the characters in the comic book.
Prove me wrong.
Or you could shut the fuck up about how inaccurate I was in describing the tech as magic.
Well, the National Guard hasn’t been able to shut down your internet-commenting-douchegabbery.
You want to commit Seppuku to restore your honor, or go Massada on your own ass to prove to us that your honor was never in question to begin with?
Wes Aaron @ 86:
Just so you know, that sort of thing exists, more or less.
It’s similar to a coded car key – I believe it takes the form of a wristwatch or suchlike that must be worn on the firing hand to allow the weapon’s safety to be disengaged. It’s typically referred to as ‘smart gun’ technology.
In fact, it’s been around for a while now.
It’s also vanishingly rare.
Care to guess who’s opposing it? (I’ll give you a hint – one of the posed ‘arguments’ is : What if Obama presses a button and my gun doesn’t work?!?)
So, given that you would support such technology (although maybe you suddenly wouldn’t when I put it this way), and that apparently the vast majority of US gun owners don’t (to the point of threatening to burn down gun shops that were publicly willing to carry the tech), who’s wrong here?
Are you a sellout, willing to trade your vital gun rights away?
Or are they irresponsible people refusing to adopt sensible safety measures?
And if you think they’re wrong, why the hell are you here arguing with us?
(Also, pet peeve: “your” = belonging to you; “you’re” = contraction of ‘you are’. Please learn this.)
OMG, when I was replying to Wes Aaron I missed this little gem of legal wisdom:
Seriously. What more is there to say? No one has had a more original take on the law since Thomas Hobbes.
Legal definition of negligence. This is generally where a person is considered responsible to a reasonable degree for the accident or incident.
http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1314
It is based on the knowledge of a reasonable person. So if it isn’t beyond a reasonable possibility for a gun to accidentally discharge in a holster, then when this happens it doesn’t automatically qualify as negligence. Yes this happens to officers with guns in holsters properly secured. Even happened to a gun on a police motorcycle with no one touching either. Two people were injured and this was considered an accident with no one at fault.
Seriously just because I don’t agree with you on what something is, doesn’t in any way endorse or encourage the action. I have no problem with better safety measures on guns as a standard or that people should receive better training on how to handle, store, or carry a firearm. I get sick of the gun nuts as well, I just don’t arbitrarily despise guns because of their actions.
Quote 1
The bolded portions should speak for themselves, but also?
Gross negligence and negligence in general are the same thing? :spock eyebrow:
Quote 2
I will leave it to others to determine if you endorse or encourage the use of idiotic, circular definitions.
As for your latest attempt:
The only response reasonable in degree for this accident or incident of atrocious narcissism colliding with legal ignorance is the classic XK Red-27 technique:
Law is the same as philosophy to a Wes Aaron, eh? Winkwink? Nudgenudge?
Wes Aaron
The violence you’re doing to the English language here should be criminal. A reasonably prudent person learns how to properly handle their gun before they stick it in their pocket and take it to class with them. But you go from reasonably prudent person to a reasonable possibility that the gun could discharge making it not negligence. You do realize there is a difference between actions that it is reasonable to expect of a person and things one can reasonably believe are possible? Fuck you for apparently thinking we’re stupid enough not to notice that fantastically clumsy slight of hand you just tried to pull.
“Seriously guys just because I’m restructuring the entire fucking language to find a way for this not to be negligence doesn’t mean I think it’s OK.” Wow.
Wes Aaron #110
Aaaaand the very first sentence of the definition, on the page you so helpfully linked…
Like making fucking sure that a fucking weapon is in as safe a fucking condition as it can be fucking well be made. How fucking dim do you have to be in order to not notice that he doesn’t fucking well appear to have fucking done that?
Fucksake.
Anybody who has a gun misfire in public is negligent. Why can’t you agree with obvious, and must keep lying and bullshitting us?
That should never be the case. There is always, short of a lightning strike, somebody not doing what they should be doing to ensure the safety of themselves and others, when a gun misfires and hurts people.
Anything other than the condemnation of the misfire as an act of negligence is excusing it as not being worthy of notice. It is worthy of a criminal act.
Wes Aaron @86:
Are you this dense in meatspace, or is this an act you put on online? The 2nd Amendment has everything to do with people owning guns in the US, including walking around open carrying.
@Tony!, #115:
You’re talking to someone whose definition of “negligence in general” is “acting with negligence”. I tell my photons to cross the street if they see Wes Aaron approaching.
Wes Aaron @86:
No. You don’t. All you have are more gun apologetics. Which we’ve seen before. From you and many others.
@110:
I can’t believe you just did this. You actually begin by talking about negligence being based on the knowledge of a reasonable *person*, then switch to talking about a reasonable *possibility*, as if we’re not going to notice this. What are you trying to even argue here-that it’s not reasonable to think the professor should know how to properly store his weapon, in what condition it should be stored, and whether or not it’s loaded? I, for one, think it is quite reasonable to expect *all* gun owners-including the idiotic professor who endangered his class-to properly store their weapons, keep their weapons in the proper condition, and keep them unloaded save for when they’re about to be used.
I liked how Wes Aaron said that the guy wasn’t ignorant, he just didn’t know.
The key difference here is that the officers were carrying guns as part of their job. The guns being there were necessary. Thus the issue of being negligent in BRINGING THE GUN to that location in the first place does not apply.
But that is ONE OF THE MAJOR POINTS of discussion for THIS situation.
What a disgustingly dishonest attempt to ignore one of the most important points.
A well-respected gun designer suggested a gun design that does precisely this, and gun-apologists like you promptly sent him death threats.
It is his responsibility to CHECK if the gun was in poor repair, or if the safety would disengage easily, or that carrying it openly in his pocket would cause a misfire.
If he did not know, then he is NEGLIGENT.
Tony and others
I’m clearly aware that my initial definition of negligence is different than the legal definition. Given that the legal definition is where blame would most likely be put form a legal standard. It still doesn’t demonstrate negligence. As in the case of the misfires by guns carried by officers. Pretty sure they count as reasonable people for this. So if you’re hung up on my initial definition, I’m trying to conform to a better defined use of the word to prevent an argument over semantics. Probably jumped the gun, but hey can’t be perfect and addressing that many posts it takes a lot of focus to keep things strait.
Also an unloaded conceal carry gun? Well that pretty much defeats the purpose of having the gun. There is no logical way this functions, unloaded means no rounds in the gun. Even police officers don’t go to this extreme. Did he have a holster or not? The story doesn’t say for sure. We don’t even know what type of firearm it is, if the safety was set, or malfunctioned? That is a lot of absent evidence for this assertion. How do you get from point A (it misfires) to point B (he was negligent)?
I’m going to try to enjoy what little time I have left before I have to go to work. Maybe catch a game. Later all.
One more example of Wes Aaron’s intellectual dishonesty:
Notice how he restricts the definition of “negligence”, trying to qualify it as “gross negligence”, and attempting to insert a strict interpretation of a legal definition, when most of those engaging in the discussion beforehand were definitely NOT using the word in such a restricted manner.
He knows he has no leg to stand on otherwise, so he desperately attempts to unilaterally redefine the parameters of the discussion.
In a public discussion, few acts are so dishonest, or so rude.
More disgusting dishonesty from Wes Aaron.
You’re the one who STARTED the argument over semantics here.
Wes Aaron
Yes, oh so arbitrary. Putting your fingers in your ears and singing “la la la la” is your tactic of choice towards approaching reality, it seems.
Daz on the topic of Wes Aaron and negligence:
Bingo and seriously.
Why are gun apologists always so incompetent at their job? It seems to be like a law of nature.
I see Wes Aaron the fuckwitted gun apologist won’t accept the truth . Any carry is intrinsically unsafe. The only way for the weapon to be intrinsically safe is for it to be unloaded when in public. Since the goal of gun safety is no deaths or injuries due to misfires, the handwriting is on the wall.
Wes Aaron
How long has it been since you cleaned and serviced your guns?
I simply do not understand how either not making safety checks on dangerous equipment, or owning such equipment and not making oneself aware of what checks need to be made, can be honestly* described as anything but negligence.
*Yep; I went there. If it walks like a dishonest fuckwad and quacks like a dishonest fuckwad…
Wes Aaron @ 122:
Really?
An unloaded gun can deter a target just as well as a loaded gun can. An openly-carried unloaded gun can make a target think twice just as much as a loaded gun carried openly can.
In fact, the only thing a loaded gun does better than an unloaded gun is blowing holes in things.
In the case of a handgun or assault rifle, those ‘things’ are intended to be people.
According to you, that’s it’s actual purpose.
So, the next time someone claims that guns aren’t intended to blow holes in people, that they’re just to deter bad guys and make them think twice, may I steer them towards you so you can correct them?
Or would consistency to that degree be just too much to ask?
chigau #127
I get the strong feeling Wes is constantly polishing his guns.
Wes Aaron @ 122
I’m clearly aware that my initial definition of negligence is different than the legal definition.
Clearly. You’re also clearly trying to walk a tightrope between them and hoping we won’t notice. We noticed.
doh
The first line in my 131 is meant to be a block quote from Wes Aaron’s 122.
Unloaded guns defeat the purpose of concealed carry! Just like gun safes and keeping a gun unloaded at home defeats the purpose of having a gun for home security!
Yes, the actual reasons why several people own or carry guns are often undermined by the safety precautions and best practices that Responsible Gun Owners claim to abide by and claim to universally support. I do not see why it is our fault that they are trying to have their cake and shoot it too.
Wes Aaron
As you would know if you’d had proper firearms safety training (of the sort offered by professional firearm using organizations such as the U.S. Army) there is no such thing as an accidental discharge, only negligent discharges.
The fact that such an ‘accident’ is possible is proof of negligence.
Yes, this is true. It applies equally to handguns as it does to rifles, in fact.
No, they really don’t, and it’s no less a sign of negligence when they shoot off a gun. The police shouldn’t be carrying guns on a routine basis either.
Oh, good lord. There is no excuse for an “accidental” discharge.
If you carry a semi-automatic pistol, you don’t carry it with one in the chamber. When you take it out, and are going up to the two-hand grip, you grasp the slide and pull it back, then release it. That takes a half-second, and cocks the gun to fire. It also makes it damn clear to your target that you have a round ready. It also reduces any possibility of the gun going off, unless your pocket lining can grab and pull about five pounds for three inches without you noticing. (You can also carry the magazine out of the gun, and insert it on the way up to the two-hand grip. Then cycle the slide. You do practice, don’t you?)
If you carry a revolver, you do what the cowboys did, and leave a bullet out of the cylinder, with the empty under the hammer. Or, better, you carry your speedloader — you do have a speedloader — and do the little loading dance as smoothly as you have practiced, and the gun goes from not-even to usable, and the target is impressed by your gun skill, and just surrenders.
Or are you planning a quick-draw scenario in your little Hollywood-cowboy fantasies? You do realize that the quick-draw gunfights never took place, and that real gun–users don’t practice quick draws. Don’t you?
Wes Aaron @122:
Because as a responsible gun owner he should ensure that the deadly weapon he owns is in proper condition and that he’s following all possible safety recommendations.
He’s the owner.
It misfired/discharged.
It’s his fault.
FFS, your gun apologetics are disgusting.
Wes Aaron @122:
The presence of a gun is frightening enough for some. Bullets are not necessary to scare people. Of course if you own a gun and carry it around bc you WANT to injure or kill people, then I guess I can see how useless an unloaded gun is.
Do you also argue that a gun stored at home should always have bullets in it? “What good is a gun at home to protect yourself if the bullets aren’t in it?”
I believe someone upthread asked you if you’d react the same way if the professor’s gun went off and hit a student. I don’t believe you answered that one yet. So, would it be his fault then? Would he have been negligent then?
Why should they? In their line of works, guns are deemed necessary. They should be loaded.
Damn, but you’re a dishonest fuck.
As was mentioned above, in factory safety there are no accidents. Everything is preventable. Everything was due to someone not being careful enough. (That doesn’t stop a factory from deeming something an acceptable risk, but somebody makes that decision.) Wes Aaron, of course, bends the issue around to the big man oppressing the little guy.
Not-even-close-to-holy shit-shuckers, batman!
Look, I get how studying the law can be hard and complicated. You generally don’t have access to an annotated law dictionary so that the terms that look like plain language descriptions but aren’t (such as “reasonable person” which has a specific legal definition, this is not just a description) that are included in technical definitions are not called out so that you know, “Hey! I need to look up this other thing too, or I won’t understand the definition of this thing…” Hell, most of first year law can be boiled down to 3 things:
1. Learning a method to analyze a legal situation stepwise, in a manner other lawyers will recognize and understand.
2. Learning how to cite things so that other people can find your sources easily.
3. Gaining a vague memory of each of a shitstorm of terms, which your professors will NOT expect you to know, but WILL expect you to recognize in readings as technical terms and not plain language descriptions so that you can look them up.
if Harvard has to charge you $45k for your first year, then that means Harvard Law thinks it’s help in giving you a vague idea of which terms you have to look up in Black’s and not the OED, then that’s about $15k worth of term-lists and giving you a first shot at learning what they mean.
So, yeah, of course you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about in the realm of law. **I** still largely have no fucking clue about way too much law. I am entirely, 100% ignorant of US tax law, for instance, and my knowledge of Canadian tax law isn’t “wahffffer thin”. It’s graphene-fucking thin.
I have no probe with you being ignorant. Here, however, is where the rubber meets the road:
If you are perfectly aware that your definition of negligence isn’t the legal definition of negligence (or anything like it), then when you preface your definition with “Legal definition of negligence,” you are, how do I say this gently, lying. Lying like a cat in the sun. Lying like a Galapagos marine iguana 2 minutes after climbing up above the high tide that swamped it in its sleep and 2 minutes before sunrise. Lying like a hypothermic horse. Lying like a bearskin rug.
You have a serious problem with being able to admit when you’re wrong. I thought that was bad enough. But now you freely admit to lying.
How, precisely, are we to engage in any productive discussion at all with you if you are lying like Sleeping-Fucking-Beauty?
If you want to have this conversation – a real conversation, with, like, a tiny sliver of hope of actually getting anyone reading your words to believe your assertions and premises and/or even be convinced by your argument – you first have to own up to the fact that it was wrong to present something not remotely resembling the legal definition as an abbreviated form of the legal definition.
if you can’t do this, you’re not a liar, you’re an unrepentant liar, and for the purposes of this conversation, not worth the trouble to haul your ass to the garbage can.
May I ask you a serious question. I was reading a cool new comic book the other day. Almost as realistic as Judge Dredd with its so-quick-it-never-stops-you-from-quick-drawing-and-yet-works-through-an-armored-glove DNA Electronic Restrictions on Propellent-Discharged Electable-Round Pistols™ technology. The main character is named Tautology. Tautology’s super powers are, obviously, Tautology’s superpowers. But I was wondering if the rumor the the lack of secret identity is true. Some people are saying Tautology is Tautology. But I wondering if Tautology might actually be Wes Aaron.
Ack, NO! This is what the investigation or trial (or even informal argument) is trying to decide. You don’t say, “well, I’m a reasonable person, so whatever I did obviously isn’t negligence, because that’s something that reasonable people don’t do.” Okay, well other people don’t say that. Tautology might, though.
What you do is determine what a “reasonable person” might do. Then you compare the actions of the police officer to the actions of a reasonable person to see if the police officer is fucking reasonable.
I’m not getting hung up on your initial definition. I’m hung up on the fact that you have no definition, and yet act as if you can make an argument anyway, though you seemed to be absolutely forced – forced, I tell you! – to beg the question (“in the case of the misfires by guns carried by officers. Pretty sure they count as reasonable people”).
If I was hung up on some specific definition, rather than “hung up on” (if by that you mean “criticizing”) the fact that you are asserting things that aren’t true, I would have all sorts of comments, like “reasonable person” itself has no meaning outside of law. If I sip my tea rather than chug it, can I get away with not buying a gun safe? Why not? I’m a reasonable fucking person FSMdammit!
If you ever get around to asserting a definition, that could be something that we might talk about. But even when you say you are asserting a definition, it’s either too vague to be useful, or is a lie about the legal definition, such that I’m not sure if we’re supposed to compare your argument to the actual legal definition or to the bullshit vagueness you dropped in your comment that bears no resemblance to the legal definition.
Really, I can’t be hung up on any of your definitions because I can’t take a one of them seriously.
AND WHAT IS THAT DEFINITION?
If you **start** with a definition of negligence against which we can compare known facts, we might be able to have a conversation.
So get busy and,
1) apologize for lying and promise not to do it again
2) stop acting like you know anything at all about the law and actively affirm that you get it that you are legally ignorant. While I can see through your bluster, I’m wearing my legal-education X-Ray-Specs. (Which totally let you see through women’s clothing. And hypnotize them into having sex with you. And make transparent, cartoonish lightning shapes jump from your fingertips. I know it’s true, because I saw it in a comic book.) Not everyone here has the legal education to know that you don’t have day 1 of a legal education.
3) Actually present an argument of the form,
a) The following constitutes negligence. Negligence is present IF AND ONLY IF all of these elements are present.
b) Therefore, if the actions of person X collectively compose all the elements I am proposing in my definition of negligence, the in/actions of the person constitute negligence. If they do not so compose all the elements of negligence, the in/actions of the person do not constitute negligence.
c) A person is negligent IFF the person’s in/actions-in-question constitute negligence.
d) This is a fair description of the person’s in/actions, as we know them.
e) This is a fair interpretation of the requirements of the general definition of negligence into this specific scenario (say, carrying a loaded weapon).
f) the in/actions compare thusly to the requirements of the definition of negligence in this way
g) therefore the in/actions do/don’t constitute negligence.
h) therefore the person can/cannot be fairly said to be negligent, at least in relation to this situation.
It feels ridiculous to teach you how to construct an argument, given how much you practice, but you’re plainly terrible at it.
Want to give it a try, or would you rather continue to pretend that you haven’t named yourself a liar and avoided admitting mistakes even when they are patently obvious to everyone reading this thread?
Here’s some relevant data: the US armed forces (you know, PROFESSIONAL gun-toters) consider ANY unintentional discharge of a firearm to be… wait for it… A ‘NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE.’ Hmmm.
To elaborate:
From here!
Maybe I’m beating a dead horse here, but it seems to me that anyone carrying a deadly weapon of any sort is ‘under a duty to use due care’ and ensure that it does not discharge. To do otherwise would be to endanger others! This isn’t super complicated.
Snarky comments hat spring to mind …
Apparently the safety training didn’t really take. I wonder if he marks really generously, given that he can’t expect the students to do as well as he does in educational situations.
I feel for the poor grad student that has to take over the class now. The expectations are high. Explosions may have to happen in the lab …
“Bennett earned his doctorate in organometallic chemistry” – I didn’t think foot and Pb were the “organ” and “metal” parts of that research, but I’ll have to check out his dissertation.
Especially since the whole damn point of carrying a gun is to make the world safer. Supposedly.
#140 — Rossignol
#140 — Rossignol
(Comments do weird things if you hit TAB.)
The same is true of any police department large enough to have an Internal Affairs unit. Discharge of a department-issued firearm not in the line of duty gets (or should get) investigated. It’s often not a pleasant process.
“Breaking Bad” would have been cut disappointingly short had pre-diagnosis Walter White been packing.
“Chemistry is the study of…”
BANG!
Executive Producer
Vince Gilligan
Oh, and if anyone wants a better idea about whether Wes Aaron is honest, or is able to educated on the issue, here are the other gun threads that Wes Aaron has already shot his feet in:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/08/02/ill-be-good-mommy-i-promise-ill-be-good/
His best idiocy was his first idiocy:
He then continues to defend this tripe when people point to other first world countries with gun control that actually fucking works by bleating “you didn’t look at third world countries, so I am right!”.
Also one other entertaining turd: After talking about “oh noes banning gunz” over and over, and being told that total gun bans were not what was really being proposed (I know I would like one but it isn’t at all practical yet in the U.S.), Wes Aaron replies to Tony:
Gun logic at work.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/07/23/the-squirreliest-thing-ive-seen-all-day/
Watch this argument implode in on itself:
Paragraph 2: “Oh, you could totally kill someone with a stapler if you wanted too, you don’t need guns to kill!”
Paragraph 3: “Oh, you totally need guns! Have you ever seen an army equipped with staplers!?”
And here’s a bonus “blame it on the mentally ill” comment (that begins a series of comments where vacillates on the subject):
Just in case he hasn’t already bravely run away, or just in case he dives into a gun thread, there you go folks: That’s Wes Aaron. Not the worst Sophisticated Gunpologist out there, but certainly not the best either.
For the corrections:
My original definition of negligent was a colloquial use of the word, and many here didn’t share the same usage. So when I changed to definition to fit a legal one it was to better adhere to a wider accepted use of the word. If that’s dishonest then you don’t care about conveying ideas, because part of an honest conversation is defining terms to an acceptable understanding, because people don’t always adhere to your colloquial definition of a word.
Decided to do some extra research and make sure that I’m presenting only the facts.
Average window of opportunity to use a conceal carry weapon is three seconds. Most gun fights happen at around 12ft, before a person intent on harm will reach you. With a conceal carry you cannot legally draw your weapon unless your prepared to use it. So the deterrent argument is bullshit. You’re not an officer, and that would be threat with a deadly weapon, unless your life is in imminent danger you cannot draw your gun from it’s holster!
1.7 seconds to remove gun from holster and fire if round is chambered.
2.6 seconds to remove gun from holster, ready round and then fire round if not chambered.
The average person takes approximately half a second to recognize and action is needed. With an non chambered round you’re more likely to get killed before you can act. And an unloaded gun you can kiss your ass goodbye!
Modern or more specifically unaltered modern firearms are safe enough if properly maintained to say that any discharge is a negligent discharge. Only poor maintenance, wrong holster, or certain modifications (reducing the weight of the trigger pull) will result in a discharge and that would be negligent.
Not one shred of evidence answers whether it is a modern firearm? Poorly maintained firearm? If it was in a holster? Was the safety on? Not one of these questions is answered. You still haven’t gotten from A to B. You cannot demonstrate negligence without one of these being evident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhHGVVRLMxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgAXO452XSQ
This is my last post on this. And to all who think I was being dishonest. I understand this blog is mainly anti-gun and I expect the shit storm when I don’t agree with the majority. That said in general any time there is a dissenting opinion and you fail to address the facts, shows dishonesty.
Daz @92
Somehow this got lost in the conversation and for integrity’s sake I will answer it.
Gross negligence is being blatantly negligent to the point that there is no question a normal person should know not to do it.
anteprepro @147
Quote mining? Really? Well I’m pretty sure anyone who’s made many posts for any real length of time could be shown to be inconsistent with this action, because people change their opinions with new evidence and so anyone subject to these dishonest attacks would have to agree. That yep my mind isn’t closed so as new arguments are presented my opinions will change. If that’s the best you got, I used to be religious so there may be quotes of me believing in god. I don’t believe that now.
Funny how you mention the UK thing and forget the post where I corrected myself and apologized in the same thread. Really who’s being dishonest?
Wes Aaron #148
Yep, I already knew that thanks, what with being a speaker of the English language an’ all.
Machinery which spits out lumps of metal at speeds best measured in Mach numbers is, by definition, extremely dangerous machinery.
Not performing proper safety checks on extremely dangerous machinery or using/transporting it in an unsafe manner is, by definition, grossly negligent.
Not acknowledging the above is either, by definition, disingenuous, or shows a level of ignorance which boggles the mind.
So are you stupid or dishonest, Wes?
Accusation of quote mining? Prove it.
Have you actually changed your opinions? Because those threads are not that old and you certainly did admit to error in them. Just like you are continuing avoiding to own up to your mistakes in this one.
(If you did actually acknowledge you were wrong about the UK, I must have missed with all of your bullshit about “what about third world countries!”)
Finally: I notice the utter lack of citations when it comes to “facts” in your latest post.
Doubling down is all you fucking do. If you change your opinions on something, you conveniently decide to do it silently or while mumbling about other shit, which means you are never clearly and openly admitting actual error. That is what makes you fucking dishonest.
Wes Aaron
Promise?
Also:
Did you not fucking get that the one of the key issues is that your “legal definition” was not right? That was utter shit because you are incompetent and didn’t interpret what it meant correctly?
Jesus fucking Christ, fucking gun apologists.
150: Should be
“certainly did NOT admit error in them”
And what are the odds of fuckwits like you getting into a gun fight, unless you are the aggressor? Answer the real question. If you don’t draw your weapon in a year, why are you carrying it? Reality has a keep your gun locked away bias.
And you can have a misfire how often compared to being in a gunfight at the OK corral? How often do gunfights happen? Show us statistics to back up that gunfights happen more frequently than negligent misfires, like in the OP. Do your homework.
I’m sure it’s Wes’ last comment in *this* thread. He’ll be back to another gun thread to engage in apologetics and throw up the “banning guns” bullshit at some point in the future. I’m really surprised we didn’t get any of our other gundamentalists showing up in this thread.
Oh, and I have to snicker at the idea that he was quote-mined by anteprepro.
Daz @149
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=838
Your negligence would have to be almost evil in it’s intent to count as gross negligence.
Didn’t feel it was fair not to answer you on this, even though I said that was my last post.
Wes Aaron is begging for more of his idiocy to be exposed, so here is another nugget:
The above is Wes Aaron not releasing that “Open Carry” laws apply to public places in plain sight of other people, and that shooting animals on your own fucking property is NOT OPEN CARRY.
Here is the only thing half-way resembling Wes Aaron almost kinda admitting they were wrong about the UK and gun control. It is the final paragraph from the final comment they made in the relevant thread.
That is a strange way of admitting error. It sounds like throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the debate in order to distract, and hedge, and confuse, and sort of claim you had a point, and using the deluge of garbage to bravely run away. Basically, just like Wes Aaron is doing now.
And yes, Wes Aaron totally said that guns and lack of gun control were just “correlating evidence”, thumping his chest about how it is Just As Good as his “causal evidence” (“U.S. culture is impatient!”) that he pulled out of his ass.
I love quote mine accusations. Anyone with even a fraction of a skeptical bone in their body, even a passing familiarity with Christian apologetics, should know damn well that just shouting “quote mine” isn’t worth jack shit and is probably the most frequent and bogus accusation out there in the realm of debates. And anyone also familiar with debates about evolution and creationism will know how to clearly show that a REAL quote mine is a quote mine, which is what people who actually have the facts on their side will do. People without that just bark “quote mine” and leave it at that. Like fucking clockwork.
Oh, and final bit of bemusement: Are we seriously supposed to buy the “I am a changed man” bit? When you are right in the fucking middle of gun apologetics and when the threads in question are barely six fucking weeks old? Stupid, dishonest, whatever Wes Aaron is, the effect is fucking absurdity.
Wes Aaron #156
What part of “not making sure an extremely dangerous mechanism is a safe as it can possibly be, before carrying it into the presence of people who may be killed by it” do you find hard to accept as—and I quote from your link—”just shy of being intentionally evil”?
Wes Aaron:
Wes Fucking Aaron apparently was only capable of reading half of a fucking paragraph:
Apparently treating property worse than you would your own is Almost Evil Intent!
There is also the wikipedia entry to edify as well:
By analogy, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being “gross.” Prosser and Keeton describe gross negligence as being “the want of even slight or scant care”, and note it as having been described as a lack of care that even a careless person would use. They further note that while some jurisdictions equate gross negligence with recklessness in terms of culpability, most simply differentiate it from simple negligence in terms of degree.[1]
It’s not about evil or intent. It is about recklessness and lack of proper care.
Wes Aaron says:
That doesn’t mean that you HAVE to use it. It still means you can just wave it about as a deterrent. What you cannot do is pull it out and later say that you only meant it as a deterrent, and then claim that shooting the person was an accident. Don’t bring a gun to a gunfight, and then claim to be a spectator. But you can draw the gun, and then put it back without shooting it.
With a non-chambered round you are less likely to get killed by your own gun before you ever “need” the damn thing. And an unloaded gun means not having to kiss your children goodbye.
From those oh-so-safety-conscious folks at the NRA:
Even the uber-gun-fondlers think Wes is full of shit.
Daz @162:
I already tried that one. Wes just dismissed it as “it defeats the purpose of open carrying if the gun is unloaded”. You know those college professors have to be ready to kill people at a moments notice.
@ Dishonest McLiarPants (AKA Wes Aaron)
Bullshit. Your original definition was of your own design for the purpose of excluding failure to know how to properly handle a gun. That bullshit “It’s only negligent if you knew what you were supposed to do and didn’t do it” only magically cropped up after several of us asked you if an “accidental” discharge is consistent with properly handling a gun. You painted yourself into a corner and tried to define your way out of it.
Wes Aaron,
I am really confused about what you’re saying here. A gun went of unintentionally in a classroom setting in someones pocket, shooting the owner of the gun in the foot… Is there really any scenario in which such a thing happening is not the result of negligence?
Props to the people at Panera Bread for not caving in.
Why would anyone walk around with a gun unloaded or without a round in the chamber? The whole point of concealed/open carry is to be able to pull out a gun and fire if the situation warrants it. If you’re afraid of a negligent discharge, even with a weapon with a safety, then you should save yourself the expense of buying a gun and paying for a concealed carry license.
I knew another gundamentalist would show up. I actually thought it would be eeyore, but it seems caesar has decided to shit on the carpet. He was my second choice.
And it looks like he is yet another person who doesn’t care about following gun safety rules.
I know everything scares you shitless, but you don’t need to engage in namecalling Tony. Also, O believe I was promoting gun safety. Almost all modern guns come with safeties like a trigger safety, and a grip safety. Plus many of them are easy to take apart for maintenance. If with all of that, you’re still uncomfortable with walking around with a loaded weapon tgem it’s safer for you and everyone around you that you just not have a gun. see, looks like safety afvice to me.
Why not just walk around with the gun in your hand?
caesar @169:
Not everything scares me, nor do the things that *do*, scare me shitless, you fuckwitted assclam.
As for namecalling, I think you’re a scumbag, racist, gundamentalist asshole, and I’ve yet to see you change into a more compassionate, empathetic human being, so I’ll call you names if I choose.
Also, I do have a justifable amount of fear of gun owners based on how many so-called “responsible” gun owners go and shoot others for ridiculous reasons. Instead of trying to defuse a situation, far too many people take to their guns and escalate things, like shooting people bc of traffic issues, or pulling a gun on a father trying to teach his daughter to ride a bike, a cop shooting an unarmed man multiple times, or shooting a woman through the front door when she’s looking for help. I’m a Person of Color living in the United States, and I realize that some people would love to kill me for that reason alone. Nevermind being gay. Or an atheist.
It’s not irrational to be wary of deadly weapons being allowed openly when you live in a culture like the US that glorifies them and doesn’t treat them responsibly. But of course you don’t even recognize that, bc among the many problems you have-you don’t give a shit about causing other people to be uncomfortable.
As for safety advice, I’m talking about not loading the weapon until you’re ready to use it.
http://m.wikihow.com/Handle-a-Firearm-Safely
Unless one is so dishonest as to try to claim that carrying the weapon on your person while teaching a class counts as “in use”, one does not load the gun.
Who am I kidding? OF COURSE caesar is that dishonest.
A trained responsible gun user should be able to load his gun/move a round into the chamber within a fraction of a second (and if his gun does not allow that, he’s using the wrong type of gun for self-defence).
Let’s grant that this fraction of a second does result in a theoretically higher risk of a bad outcome if one should need to use that gun in an emergency.
But how large is this risk? How many times has there been a documented instance of successful use of a gun in self-defence where the fact the gun was already loaded was critical to success?
I’ve never heard of a single one.
So what is the risk of keeping the gun loaded? How many instances of accidental discharge have been empirically documented? In the last two weeks I’ve already heard of several.
Keeping your gun loaded is clearly not effective for self defence.
caesar @167
Because they give a shit about the safety of people who aren’t them. Which is, of course, incomprehensible to you so it’s really quite understandable that you had to ask.
@171:
Strike 1! Strike 2, Strike 3! Yer out!
The vast majority of gun owners aren’t doing anything like that, so I would spend my time worrying about more important things.
Now you’re being paranoid. Again, you should find more important things to worry about rather than entertain the silly notion that people are out to get you because you’re a black,gay atheist.
And if you’re not at a gun range or at home around small children, that advice is stupid. An unloaded gun is only slightly more useful than a paperweight.
Why not carry the gun in your hand?
@ caesar
Aaannnnnnddd you can fuck right the fucking fuck off for being an ignorant, oblivious, reality denying, empathy-deficient, piece of shit.
caesar:
Nope, I’m still here. Rarin’ to go and will continue calling you out for being the pimple on the ass of humanity that you continue being.
Hopefully one day you’ll wise up and discover empathy and compassion, but I’m not holding my breath. You are a libertarian after all, and they’re not known for knowing nor caring about the plight of people who are not them.
Well since that’s the case, I can rest easy. Whew. Thanks for letting me know that the high levels of gun violence in the US are insufficient grounds to be worried about guns in this country.
But wait, you completely ignored the fact that I’m talking about all the irresponsible gun owners in the US, of which there are a great many.
In addition to having the compassion of a dead rat, it appears you have reading comprehension problems. I never said I was worried that anyone was “out to get me”. I said that because I live in a country (more specifically, in the South) where gun violence is prevalent, where racism is prevalent, and anti-LGBT violence is frequent, these are reasons for me to be concerned about the irresponsible gun owners in this country. And there are a *lot* of those.
Of course you’d say something this ridiculous. Your privilege, it is leaking.
Have you even *read* a privilege checklist? Have you even attempted to understand what life is like for others who are not you?
Did I really just ask those questions?!
I wonder why gun safety rules call for guns to be unloaded until they’re ready to be used. I guess for open carry people, they want to be ready at a moments notice to shoot and kill people, rather than adhere to rules, or even attempt to ::gasp:: employ non-violent means of resolving conflicts.
@86:
There is at least one that 108 Anri mentioned where the Seller had their life threatened. IIRC, New Jersey also had a law drafted (by the gun lobby) to make the sale anywhere in the United States effectively shut down manufacturing of said weapon.
I also remember seeing on some History channel (not related to Big Foot, Aliens or Hitler) where there was a gun design that used a ring to send the unlock code. The one that the seller was threatened over used a bracelet. Thing is: The range was feet for the bracelet. I forget what the ring’s range was.
Caesar, that’s ban-worthy.
Can you load a paperweight in two seconds? No? Then an unloaded gun is of more use than a paperweight.
Honestly, the fact that you fantasize about quick-draw situations, and that you dismiss and deride anyone who is different from you, makes you exactly the wrong kind of person to carry a gun. And that you can’t imagine practicing enough to be able to load quickly, proves you to be an irresponsible gun owner.
You are frightening, Caesar, and unsafe, and a good argument for banning guns entirely. If you are a typical gun owner, we have no hope of having gun safety.
…or libertarian, if you prefer. Same diff, really.
@176:
Because it’s illegal outside of your home. Because it attracts unwanted attention. Because you could drop it and cause the gun to fire if it has a hair trigger. Are those good enough reasons or do I need some more?
I bet caesar didn’t even read the comment I wrote about walking home at night (in the wake of the murder of Michael Brown at the hands of the racist assclam Darren Wilson), but I’ll repost it:
If you have to shoot someone who is threatening you with a gun, what good is your concealed gun? Loaded or not.
The person with the gun already in their hand is obviously going to win.
chigau @184:
Not in the John Wayne fantasies of people like caesar.
I was thinkin’ more like Travis Bickle.
So they don’t have a negligent misfire and hurt/kill themselves or others. But then, the arrogance of liberturds doesn’t allow for experts telling them how to behave in a safe manner. They, in their ignorance, know best. *snicker*
Still the poster child for the abysmal ethics of your political theology, Caesar.
No, it’s purpose is to intimidate the minorities, who can’t afford guns, and with stand-your-ground, allow for modern lynchings. Still morally bankrupt, and as stupid as ever.
A loaded gun with a round in the chamber is less useful than a paperweight. A malfunctioning or improperly handled paperweight won’t kill you, and as we have already seen, the risk of a loaded gun going off accidentally is far higher than the likelihood that a loaded gun will be helpful in a situation where an unloaded gun with ammo at the ready wouldn’t have been.
Relative to a paperweight, for self-defence a loaded gun has negative utility.
Nope, no way, no how. You are one stupid fuckwitted idjit. The only way to carry a gun in public with intrinsic safety is if it is unload. Not as safe is where there is no live bullet under the hammer so it can’t negligently misfire. But then, you know better than the experts, don’t you Caesar? You know everything better than everybody else, especially the experts…..
He hasn’t, and I think he can’t. I think he’s a sociopath who can’t even imagine empathy as a theoretical concept.
All reasons not to carry a loaded weapon in the first place. You are one dumb and arrogant fuckwitted idjit.
So caesar the sociopath barges in to be YET ANOTHER gun fetishist who flagrantly and loudly rejects the safety standards set forth by the NR-fucking-A. When you are more reckless and gung ho and fantasizing about fucking cowboys than the fucking NRA, you have clearly lost the plot altogether. But we already knew that about caesar.
caesar, on why you should totally store a gun loaded in your pants but not carry it around in your hands loaded:
Not only are you amoral without a shred of sympathy or human decency, you are also just a fucking idiot. As usual. Congratulations on that achievement, caesar.
@ Nerd:
Just since we all know what happens when people of minority status even think of arming themselves… let alone actually stand their ground.
@ caesar:
Whereas open carry attracts wanted attention? Jebus fuck, dude.
And rest assured: This gun was just in this guy’s fucking pants (his pocket)
Reuters and Idaho State Journal already said pocket in OP.
CBS says Pocket: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-state-university-teacher-accidentally-shoots-self-in-class/
Washington Post says Pocket: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/05/idaho-professor-shoots-himself-in-foot-two-months-after-state-legalizes-guns-on-campuses/
Fucking Fox News says Pocket: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/04/idaho-state-university-instructor-shoots-self-in-foot/
But in the world according to caesar, your fucking pocket is safer than your fucking hand. Because caesar actively wants death. Revels in it. Caesar wants the world to burn and will say any asinine thing and bleat any inane and idiotic talking point to add fuel to the fire. Caesar is no Julius or Claudius, caesar is fucking Nero.
Caesar, you keep telling us about guns and gun owners and gun safety as if you are the expert and we haven’t a fucking clue. Well, listen up.
I qualified on the 1911 Pistol and the M-16, back in my time in the armed forces. I have a plastic AirSoft target 1911 Colt here on my desk. There is a real semi-automatic pistol in the hall closet (with the magazines somewhere else), and a .22 rifle in another room. There are NRA magazines in the recycle bin. I live in southern Missouri, in a small town. I have gone deer hunting, skeet shooting and just plain plinking. I have lived and worked with hunters of all sorts. I know guns, and I know gun owners, and I have taken the safety courses and seen the videos and been to gun shows and read the books.
I have fired a shotgun next to a piano, and I have heard my employer trying to get back a pistol he had left under a hotel bed. I have gone up a river that some idiot was using for a target range, and I have taken water samples in a police target range. I can be at Bass Pro’s indoor range in 15 minutes.
I could go on and on, but my point is that you need to stop.
Your idiotic treatment of Tony! is typical gunfondler, and typically stupid. Seriously. You are arguing that you need to carry a gun to be safe, when chances are that you are a white male, and that you want to defend yourself from black males, but you scoff at Tony!, who is a black male, and gay and an atheist.
I know gun owners, and I know his fears are totally justified, while yours, Caesar, are not. You are a paranoid idiot, Caesar, with delusions, and you are not fooling me, nor anyone else with a lick of sense.
Any adult male who isn’t a police officer who carries a gun is a paranoid and stupid fuckwittted idjit. Exemplified by Caesar, Wes Aaron, and chap who shot himself in the foot due to his negligence. I’ve never had a cause to need a gun in 40+ years as an adult. And see no need for one either.
By statistics, having one is far more dangerous than owning one. Since I’m a rational, not paranoid person, I believe the data…..
Gack, hoof in mouth disease #198:
Menyambal:
Thank you :)
By the way, the two guns in the house were supplied by the same person, someone I severely disrespect, to his two relatives in this house, with the more careless of them being the more careless with their weapon. The semi-auto pistol, the one I could use, is in storage, not even set up for home defense (a baseball bat is by the door). The rifle I only heard was in the house when I had occasion to use the front door in the night, and was told later that the rifle had been grabbed — paranoia and arrogance are a bad mix, add in a gun and people die.
I am serious. There is a perfectly serviceable pistol in my house, legal and all, and I cannot be arsed to clean the damn thing off and buy ammo for it, even though there are people in this house who are precious to me, and who I would defend with my life, and even though someone has tried to break into my truck. Because the gun would be more danger to the people in this house, and because nothing in my truck is worth risking anybody’s life for.
caesar to Tony! in #175
Are advocates of concealed/open carry allowed to call anyone paranoid?
Concerned about damage caused by gun accidents and reckless gun users: Paranoid
Convinced that you need to carry a gun everywhere to fight off waves of Kriminal Skum fucking everywhere: AMERICAN
Saad @202:
Good point. Especially bc so many of them have been worked up into a fear fraught frenzy bc of lies told by right wingers, libertarians, and the NRA. They think danger lurks around every corner (hence the need to open carry), they think they’re going to be able to successfully fight off an attacker like a character in the movies, and they have an irrational belief that guns increase their safety. None of their beliefs are based on actual evidence.
Whereas my concerns are actually based on the available evidence. Like I’ve said, I don’t live in fear. I’m not afraid of leaving my house. I don’t walk into Target tense, and worried that some racist asshole is going to jump out at me and shoot me. I am, however, aware of the *real* problems in this country. I am aware that there are a great many people who despise People of Color, and a lot of them are gun toting people (some are police officers too). I know that a great many people want me, and all other gay people dead, bc I actually pay attention to what vile homophobes say (of course caesar wouldn’t pay attention-it doesn’t affect him and if doesn’t affect him, he doesn’t give a fuck; he’s living a life of privilege). I know that in this country a lot of people think atheists are worse than rapists; nevermind the fact that not believing in god is not a moral postion, and shouldn’t even be on a continuum of issues concerning morality. Finally, I’m aware that I live in a country where a lot of people, like Wes Aaron and caesar have a near religious love of firerarms-a love due, in part to the belief that guns are sacred objects that everyone especially men *must* have. The worship of guns overrides their ability to be rational, and is enhanced to dangerous levels by the 2nd Amendment.
I am justified in being worried about the state of the country and how I might be treated by gun toting thugs.
I wonder if the gun nuts thought the guy who called the police in this story was justified in being worried:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/09/man-who-called-911-in-ohio-walmart-shooting-changes-his-story-after-viewing-video/
Or are white people the only ones allowed to terrorize citizens with impunity?
I decided to go kill some birds yesterday so that’s why I haven’t responded to a lot of the posts. No, not real birds! What do you think I am, a savage? They were only clay birds, like with, you know, um skeet shooting, and yes, I was carrying my glock loaded and ready to go at a moment’s notice because walking around with an unloaded gun is stupid abd defeats the whole purpose of concealed carry. Anyway, let me just address the top bullshit comments addressed towards me.
Yes, I read your post about how fearful you are about being black,gay, and atheist in Florida, but I still don’t take ypur concerns that seriously. If you lived in Montana where you stood out like a sore thumb maybe, but I don’t believe that thibgs are nearly as bad as you believe.
caesar #206
Rephrasing, you are ready to kill at a moment’s notice. And you wonder why some people might find your attitude just a tad fucked up?
You have that privilege. Tony doesn’t. Also, dismissive much?
Remind me; where did Travis Martin live?
Correction: Trayvon Martin. Damned muscle-memory just carried on from “trav…”
I see that some of you guys (cough* Tony & Patrick) still have mo shame in imputing racism to explain everything. I know you guys can’t help it but everything isn’t aboit racism. Actually when it comes to concealed carry, I don’t have any blood lust, nor do I have any significant fears that I will be in any situation where I get attacked by some crazed minority high on weed and cocaine. I think tge chances are that I won’t need to use my gun in self defense, although I wouldn’t mind too much saving the day by blowing some bad guy’s brains out in a “it’s either me or you situation “. And 1 more thing, I would never carry a gun in my pocket. I’m all about safety, so I always carry in a holster designed specifically for that gun so that I won’t have to deal with any mishaps. Personally, I think a person who carries a gun in their pocket is an idiot and deserves to shoot themselves so that they learn their lesson.
caesar #209
Where did anyone say it was “all about” racism. That there’s a highly racist trend in both gun-crime and the (non-)punishment of gun-crime in the USA is hardly controversial; but I see no one trying to say that racism is the only problem.
That’s very, erm, blood-lusty phrasing, considering you “don’t have any blood lust.”
Personally, I wouldn’t wish a life-threatening accident on anyone, no matter how much that accident might be caused by their own negligence. But hey, that’s just me being all empathetic.
Are we done with caesar, yet?
This might be good day to put in a request.
Dat caesar. All about safety, he is. Carries a concealed, loaded weapon with him, not because he’s afraid he’ll have to defend himself but because he hopes he will.
I just hope there’s no innocent bystander in the line of fire when Caesar goes for that head-shot (rather than the recommended centre-of-mass, you may note) and misses.
@207:
Yes, if I were in a situation where a gunman was threatening to shoot, and there was no means of escape, then I prefer to be ready at a moment’s notice.
Yes.
Yeah I’m dismissive because I don’t believe that he’s in nearly as much danger as he thinks. Maybe if he lived in the hood, I could see something happening, although I still think it’s not very likely.
caesar #214
How likely is this scenario? (Bonus if you can show that this scenario is less likely for a black, gay atheist in the USA.)
But you are in so much danger that you carry around a machine made for the purpose of killing, in order to defend yourself. Uhuh.
caesar @ 214
Whereas Tony is concerned about situations that actually happen on a daily basis to people like him and gets labeled as paranoid. If your head gets any further up your own ass, you’re going to cancel yourself out. Which honestly would probably be for the best.
If you need to shoot someone who is threatening you with a gun, what good is your concealed gun?
The person with the gun already in their hand is obviously going to win.
The paranoid non-thinking about reality syndrome typical of liberturds. Everything in their delusions comes up all rainbows and unicorn farts, instead of reality, which is being shot going for your gun, or shaking so bad your shot misses while the gunman’s doesn’t.
@210:
No not literally everything, but there is a trend of overusing the racism accusation. Specifically I was referring to Tony@205 and that moron Nerd @188. I have never once made a racist comment. In addition, I have rarely made any reference to race in any of my comments. I believe the racism accusations are used more often than not as some lame self-righteous attempt to attack those who they disagree with, because it’s easy to do. I mean, nobody respects a racist.
No, I never said that I had desire to do it, only that if I were unfortunate to be in that situation, I would be willing to do what I had to do to save myself. Then again, the attention it would draw isn’t completely desirable.
I never wished that on anyone. I merely stated that if you’re dumb enough to do stupid shit then you’re pretty much asking to suffer the consequences.
caesar @ 129
We all have the ability to scroll up, shithead.
“pretty much asking to” ≠ “deserves to.”
And you have the ability to shut the fuck up in the faceo of evidence showing you are a liar and bullshitter, but that never causes you to do so. So the same old lies and bullshit are repeated, showing your intellectual shortcomings, and your lack of honesty and integrity.
So afraid you don’t meet your ideal of a man without fuckwitted bombast, and endangering the public by carrying a loaded weapon.
Uh, Nerd, that was me you quoted, not caesar. Silly goose.
Seven of Mine #223
I love that! Thanks. It’s so, erm, Swallows And Amazons.
</ot>
I live to serve. *hat tip*
Jeez, just from the last two comments alone:
Because it’s totes not racist to carry a weapon for killing those crazy addicts blacks from the hood. But apparently Tony shouldn’t worry since he doesn’t live in the ghetto but caesar does. Yeah, right…”I don’t bring up race much, unless I’m talking about why I carry a gun all the time to kill and who I’m shooting.”
(And no, I’m not going back to pull quotes from every thread caesar’s polluted to prove it always comes out this way every time. We’ve all read it enough, thank you very much.)
@215:
Even granting Tony the shittiness of being black, gay, and atheist in the bible belt, I think I have much more to fear than him. In fact, I would bet that there’s a better chance of a gunman and I shooting and killing each other in an OK Corral style gunfight than than him possibly being attacked.
@223:
On no, he was directing it towards you. That guy’s got an anger problem. You notice that everytime I start posting, he comes along out of nowhere with “FUCK U, U LIBERTURD PIECE OF SHIT! AAARRRRRRGGH! Seriously, isn’t that ban worthy? I come along and give my 2 cents, and he comes along like he’s waiting for me, and starts spewing insults without any provocation. Dude has a serious anger problem. I think he needs to be institutionalized. *Starts playing the Institutionalized classic from Suicidal Tendencies, no scratch that. The Body Count version is so much better.
#227 caesar
1. It’s clear he was talking about you, not Seven of Mine since they’re not the ones talking about carrying a concealed weapon out of fear.
2. Fuck you for that ablist armchair diagnosis bullshit.
caesar @206:
Of course you don’t. That’s part of the problem. You can’t conceive that the world doesn’t function in any way other than the way you view it. You can’t empathize with others enough to understand that their experiences differ from yours.
That’s at the very heart of every single problem I have with you.
(well, that and the fact that evidence is anathema to you)
caesar @209:
Another problem you have is viewing racism through a narrow lens. It isn’t just about saying N*gg**, or K*k*, or W*tb*ck. It’s not just about denying black people the right to sit in the front of the bus. It’s more than just the overt examples. It’s also the institutions in place that support the status quo that benefits white people. It’s about the fact that the systems that supported slavery and oppression of African Americans in the US are built into the fabric of our country. It’s about the fact that the Civil Rights Movement, as necessary and important as it was, is insufficient to overcome the racist history of this country. You don’t get racism at all, yet you dismiss it. Moreover, you refuse to educate yourself. Instead, you’d rather deny the experiences of millions of other people, in favor of your extremely privileged view of the world.
Here-more examples of everyday racism that you won’t acknowledge bc you deny the experiences of others (I’m sure you do the same to LGBT people and women):
You, like so many people, are highly resistant to listening to the experiences of other people, and viewing them as valid. Instead, you prefer to project your views of reality onto others, basically over-writing our lived experiences in defense of your narrow ass view of reality. Racism is everywhere. It’s felt by millions of people, whether Black, Indian, Asian, or Hispanic. It’s present in your comments all the fucking time (hell, your very denial of the experiences of black people is racist as fuck).
chigau @211:
We’ve *been* done with this shitpiston.
caesar @227:
Not when you pay attention to the actual evidence rather than the right wing paranoia running through your veins. As Seven of Mine said @216:
The stuff that concerns me happens every fucking day. You just refuse to notice it bc you’re comfortable in your little bubble of privilege.
caesar #227
Uhuh.
• Please explain why you believe you have more to fear.
• How many bystanders do you intend to endanger when enacting this fantasy?
• If the other gunman is already threatening you with a gun, what do you think your chances are of (a) managing to draw and use your own gun before he blows a fucking great chunk of your body into pulp or (b) your attempt to do so not escalating “a” into a self-fulfilling prophecy?
• Please explain why you comparing your expectation of a gunfight to a mythologised wild-west gang-fight which the reality of bears more resemblance to a small pitched battle than a heat-of-the-moment gunfight should give me confidence in your ability to inject any realism into your opinions?
caesar @ 227
Well, that’s that shark jumped.
We all think you’re a liberturd piece of shit. Nerd is just more concise than most of us.
No, it’s not ban worthy. It’s in the rules that this is a rude blog. You’re well past your 3 post benefit of the doubt phase and you’ve demonstrated amply how vile a person you are so nobody is under any obligation to wait before going full nuclear.
This, on the other hand? Is ban worthy.
An alert has been sent.
Whoa.
I missed this:
Fuck you, you fucking fuckface.
I forgot caesar is one of those people who thinks it’s so bad to use coarse language, but doesn’t have a problem being a racist, libertarian stain on humanity.
Also seconding what Seven of Mine said. We all think you’re a libturd. Nerd just says it more often than the rest of us.
****
Daz:
Thanks. I’ve about had it with the fucker.
Not that caesar is likely to read this, but if there are any lurkers out there who are on the fence:
If one is truly interested in discussing the subject of race-especially white people-you have to discard your preconceived notion. You also need to *listen* to the experiences of others, and stop filtering them through the lens of your own.
caesar, is there a reason you carry a loaded gun other than “because I can”?
Caesar, I was referring to you, as I thought I was quoting your drivel. There is no discussion with you, since liberturds are never wrong in their delusional minds. If you don’t want to be told what a basket case of amorality and ignorance you are, you can always fade into the bandwidth.
My apologies to Seven of Mine for my bad quote. mea culpa.
caesar:
No, you fucking assclam, he was directing it at you, which is more than obvious to people who are reading this thread. He made a mistake quoting Seven of Mine (misquoting is an accident that does happen), but it’s clear to the rest of us who don’t have our heads up our asses that he was talking about you.
Also, I’d be worried if people didn’t get pissed off at the shit you say. You may be using nice, polite words, but the substance of your comments is repulsive.
Caesar, I give you the great gift of more free time to spend polishing your gun. Bye.
Alas. No more will I load Pharyngula, see caesar’s name in the recent comments bar and think to myself “oh now what?” in a very resigned way. More’s the pity.
/sarcasm
Now I’ll never know how caesar planned to quick-draw against someone with gun already in hand.
Worry not. Caesar may be gone, but another, almost indistinguishable barrel-polisher will no doubt appear soon. I believe there’s a factory somewhere, turning ’em out in job lots.
oh well
Maybe Wes Aaron will return.
I’m new here and I’m a little unclear on the rules. I see caesar was banned for saying someone needed to be institutionalized, (although it looks to me like it was done in a snarky manner and not meant to be taken seriously ), but if you insinuate someone is a sociopath like David did @191, then it’s alright because? It looks like you guys just ganged up on him and banned him merely out of intolerance of his opinions. It seems silly to admit that this is a rude blog and allow people to curse at each other, but then get all pissy and ban someone for saying that another poster needed to be institutionalized. Apparently that’s taking it too far.
m3ta
Yup. Silly, we are.
Run along.
I do so enjoy when someone shows up, admits they have no idea what they’re talking about and then proceeds to criticize the way PZ runs his own blog.
caesar was banned out of intolerance of his opinions. His opinions are repugnant.
And yes, we allow people to *le gasp* swear at each other while condemning people for being racist, classist, ableist empathy-deficient all around reprehensible human beings. How terribly inconsistent of us.
m3ta:
caesar is that you?
Go read the commenting rules.
No one ganged up on him.
David calling him a sociopath is based on his deep lack of empathy which he has displayed over the many months he’s been commenting here. We have experience with him. You don’t. Or perhaps you do…I smell a sockpuppet.
He has a history of being a racist asshole, and racism isn’t tolerated here.
None of us has the power to ban him. Only PZ. His blog. His rules. Don’t like it, get lost.
Showing conversational hostility to someone expressing vile opinions is a good thing in my book. It’s the moral thing to do if anything. Just as bad actions have to be opposed, so do bad ideas.
@249:
I thought this was “Freethought Blogs” , meaning you’re allowed to express your opinions whether they agree with the general millieu or not, as log as their expressed in a respectful manner. It sounds like you’re saying that if you guys don’t like someone’s opinions then you can just ban that person for not fitting in, regardless of how respectful they were.
@250:
Fair enough,but I still don’t see how that’s different from saying someone needs to be institutionalized. I gather that neither caesar nor David are psychologists, so how come there’s no accusation of ableism flung at David?
That was the most pathetic sockpuppet ever. Yes, m3ta is caesar. m3ta is banned.
Wow. That really was pathetic.
@ m3ta
Displaying an appalling lack of concern for the well being of anyone not yourself isn’t really consistent with being respectful. And not everything is a matter of opinion about which reasonable, decent people can disagree. But otherwise, yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying.
Leaving aside that sociopathy isn’t a mental illness, I could have done without the insinuation of sociopathy myself. Having said that, David has shown himself to be a valuable member of the community, who is willing to learn and accept criticism. He gets some benefit of the doubt. caesar, on the other hand, has shown himself to be appallingly callous and bigoted and completely unmoved by facts. Can you spot the difference?
Incidentally, caesar wasn’t banned for the institutionalized comment. That was simply the last straw. Which you probably know because you probably are caesar.
Of course, if history is anything to go by, it’ll take twenty one more
stabbingsbannings to finally get rid of them…Typical mistake made by a critical newbie. Free thought has a real definition as a philosophy. From the Wiki article,
It’s not evidenceless speculation and opinion.
Feeble.
If caesar had waited a couple of hours or commented on another thread as m3ta, we would have been slower to catch on.
Dumbass.
caesar is banned?
Hallelujah!
If you keep this up PZ, you’re going to start convincing me that there really is a god and that he is good….
Not surprising that caesar things that – he’s the type who’s basically afraid of everything.
And if he really does walk is walk and conceal carry a loaded gun (which I actually doubt, based on his complete ignorance of gun safety rules that even the NRA prominently touts, I doubt caesar has ever actually touched a gun in his life) it is actually possible that his risk of being shot IS pretty high. Add up the rate of accidental discharge and an assailant taking a loaded gun from you in an altercation, and the risk of being shot with your own gun if you conceal-carry a loaded gun regularly is probably higher than the risk of being shot by some random stranger in any locality that is not a war zone….
There actually are studies that indicate availability of firearms puts you at greater risk of being the victim of a homicide than the general population.
I should say “is correlated with” as opposed to “puts you at”
I’m just mildly surprised caesar bothered to respond (by name!) to my one-off comment when there were so many quality, well-sourced comments coming in so rapidly… wait, now I get it.
I guess his version of skeet-shooting involves leaving the disk in the launcher. It’s hard to hit when it’s moving.
So, caesar made a sockpuppet, did they?
Well, thank goodness they weren’t accusing anyone of dishonesty in this very thread, because that would be idiotic hypocrisy of the highest order.
And we all know caesar would never stoop that low.
Ever.
Really.
caesar was banned? Good riddance.
caesar immediately came back pretending to be a lurker interpreting caesar’s ban as simply a reaction to one fraction of the shit they have done in this thread alone, let alone during their entire hideous posting history? Somehow unsurprising.
Yeah, one of the prime targets of burglars doing breakins are guns. And for any kind of robbery, guns are high-value loot — who carries cash? If a mugger is going to rob somebody, and the intended might be ready to use a gun, they go ahead and shoot, club or otherwise disable, instead of asking politely — then take the gun. And if someone was doing something really stupid, like shooting in a crowd, they could probably make a guess as to who was carrying concealed weapons, and shoot them on spec Owning and carrying a gun doesn’t make someone safer, it makes them a special target for criminals, and increases the dangers to everyone else.
Plus, carrying a gun will tempt a person into riskier behavior. Seriously, people with cars that have airbags and anti-lock brakes and all that defensive tech, get hurt just as badly and often, because they take more chances. Guns, same thing.
+1
sorry I missed this one earlier:
LOL
I wonder if Wes actually recognizes the impact of what he said there.
…like sticking it in their pocket with the safety off?
exactly. this is the standard victim blaming MO that perpetuates just about every tribal culture there is, from rapists to gun fetishists.
It’s rather obvious we missed teaching kids what victim blaming means in elementary school.
yup:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.VA_FgmN09gk
in case you were looking for just one cite. there are actually dozens of similar studies.
I also missed that. Crip Dyke, that is a thing of beauty.
that’s actually understated.
Something we need to see more of.
A stupid felon not allowed to handle guns twittered from a gun range.
The Federal judge didn’t think much of that.