Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, September 5, 2011

Week Five of stupid and dangerous.....


  1. So let's get started on this week's stupid and dangerous gun talk, shootings, gun incidents, etc. Of course, this week again, there are shootings of very young children. A mother was holding this two year old when he was shot and wounded by gun fire in the neighborhood. This statement just should not have to be uttered by anyone in America:  "Reverend Antonio Smith was among the parents scrambling to get their children to cover. "I don't think it was intentional. It was just somebody playing with a gun, probably just shooting. Normally they fire up in the air", he says." Normally? Are we at war? Senseless.
  2. Why don't gun manufacturers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island like the idea of tracing a bullet back to its' original source? If we want to prevent gun deaths and injuries and cut down on illegal trafficking, tracing guns and bullets to their origin is one way to find the "bad guys". Are the manufacturers afraid that they might be found guilty of wrong doing? I sure hope not. Otherwise, what is their problem with microstamping of shell casings? Instead:".... Colt, is threatening to move out of New England if such legislation is adopted." So there.
  3. Should a town disband its' police department because an officer shot a man in a domestic call? This Oregon town thinks so. Why not? Who needs a police department? You can just use your own guns for self protection, can't you? If there's some sort of emergency, just form a posse and take care of it yourselves.
  4. A shooting in Minneapolis appeared to target a Muslim youth visiting from Ohio. I will be writing more about this kind of prejudice closer to the anniversary of 9/11. To target anyone for their race, religion, or sexual orientation is inexcusable to say the least and not to be tolerated.
  5. Several threads are woven into this story about a Wisconsin man who was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. First, the newly passed Wisconsin right to carry law does not go into affect until November 1st. Second, the man had been drinking would have been in violation of the law had it been in affect. Third, he bought the gun from someone who was selling guns from his truck- no background checks required, of course. Who is buying those guns? There's no way to know except, in this case we do know that a man who was irresponsible bought this particular gun and then carried it while drinking. And, of course, this is not the first time I have written about the dangerous mix of guns and alcohol. 
  6. What makes a teen-ager want to conspire with someone named Jihad Jane in Pennsylvania about a potential school shooting? First of all, who is Jihad Jane? Second of all, what is an average looking teen-ager doing communicating with this American terrorist about a school shooting? It seems rather mysterious but more will likely be known later as the case moves its' way through the system. Suffice it to say that you just can't tell who is going to decide to shoot up a school.
  7. This is an interesting case of an accidental gun discharge. A loaded gun was laying around on a table of the home where a group of guys were filming a movie. There must have been a fair number of guns on the set since an NRA instructor was on the set- just not when someone picked up what he thought was a prop for the movie and discharged the gun. It's impossible to tell the difference between a loaded or an unloaded gun on first glance. Why, when there were unloaded guns used in the film did a loaded gun make it onto the scene at all? This was both stupid and dangerous. Luckily the young man who was shot will be O.K.
  8. It's not a week unless there is a domestic shooting. Here is a Florida shooting of a woman in the parking lot of an elementary school. This is a prime example of how a shooting traumatizes a community. What must the children be thinking when a mother of a classmate is shot in the parking lot? What must parents think when their children are going to a school where a parent is shot in the school parking lot? "It's incredible. Our children aren't even safe at school," parent Vivianna Maiquez said. "They say it's a domestic dispute but anyone could have been involved in it. Children could have seen it. That's sad."" Indeed.

    And where were all those folks with their concealed guns to help out this poor woman? Would someone have been in the exact right place at the right time to get out their own gun on school property and take care of the matter? This is a classic domestic shooting. It's an angry man with a gun seeking revenge or whatever these guys are thinking, against his ex-wife.
  9. A Kansas Attorney General doesn't see any reason why concealed guns need to be carried into government buildings. " "The simplest and most basic reason this proposal should not be adopted is that it does not advance public safety and welfare; it jeopardizes it," she wrote. "That interest is far more significant than the interest of individual citizens in availing themselves of the ability to carry a secreted firearm in government facilities while there for limited periods of time."" Why do people with concealed loaded guns need them when going to apply for a drivers' license or do business with County officials? What is the extreme danger posed by going about your daily business? If you read my blog, you may remember the incident of the man whose concealed gun fell out of his pants while he was testifying before a City Council meeting. Who was more at risk there? The man with the gun who had no reason to need it inside of the government building, or the innocent people who could have been shot by an errant bullet from the man's gun ( which presumably was carried for his own self defense)?
  10. Guns and politicians have been the subject of some of my entries on this blog. In this case, someone fired shots at a Texas Democratic Congressman's office, luckily not injuring anyone inside. If you are angry at a politician, I suggest you write a letter, call his/her office or send an e-mail. You could even ask for a face to face meeting but don't bring your gun.
  11. "If I'm a grandma, don't I need protection more than someone who's more physically capable? To me it makes perfect sense," said attorney Guy Relford. "And if Indiana provides her a legal right to do that... why would the City of Hammond want to deny that to her?"" Really? Somehow I just don't feel like I need a gun when I am playing with my grandchildren at parks. In fact, it has never crossed my mind. I'm sure there have been a few shootings here and there at playgrounds and parks but they are not particularly dangerous places. But never mind, this Indiana grandma just must have her gun when she is with her two year old grandson. This makes me wonder if it's just because she can pack heat or is it because she sees a real need? Really, has she seen all the articles I've posted about toddlers finding loaded guns and shooting themselves or other people? I guess she doesn't think it could ever happen to her. She might be wrong. Why take the risk?
  12. Governor Perry of Texas has some interesting views about guns and gun rights which he has been stating in campaign appearances. Here is an article about Perry's extreme views on many issues, including guns. Enough said. I'm sure there will be many more comments such as this going forward. Here is just one of Governor Perry's statements about gun control. "“I’m actually for gun control – use both hands,” Perry quipped." Yes, right. Good idea.
  13. And there's the ever important proof that, as a politician, you are a good shot. This video of New Mexico Governor proving her prowess with a gun is curious. Do people really care more about whether the Governor of their state is a straight shooter than whether she is concerned about jobs, health care, poverty, education, etc.?
  14. Here's a good way to get gun rights extremists to the polls- put an initiative on the ballot to allow Illinois citizens to carry loaded guns in public. If you can't get something passed through the legislature, insist that it be a ballot measure. 
  15. A high ranking official in New York Mayor Bloomberg's administration was charged with domestic abuse in July and spent some time in jail. No one is immune from domestic abuse. In this case, Mr. Goldsmith reportedly said: "  “I should have put a bullet through you years ago.” Too often words like this turn into tragic action. After the comment, some shoving and other physical actions occurred and Mrs. Goldsmith called police. Not atypical in cases of domestic abuse, Mrs. Goldsmith walked back the comments and tried to downplay what had happened. Women are frightened that if they stay in this kind of relationship, retaliation can happen; and particularly once a call to police is made. Let's hope we don't read about something else happening in this case.
  16. I thought that the guns traced in the Mexican gun deaths caused by the drug cartel were not coming from the U.S.( according to the gun lobby and many of the commenters on this blog) Here is proof positive that the gun lobby is just plain wrong about this. These "nice" and "polite" gun shop owners were caught selling guns to agents and other folks who they knew were planning to smuggle them to Mexico. They were also engaged in allowing straw purchasing of guns. Here is a corrupt gun dealer contributing to the deaths of innocent Mexican citizens. It's a clear case of catching people directly involved in trafficking guns to Mexico. Where is common sense?
  17. It's really not a good idea for the Arizona Republican party to raffle off the same type of gun used by Jared Loughner to kill 6 people and injure 13 others last January at a Tucson shopping mall. Some one must have thought it was just a great idea. Apparently common sense has no place in Republican fund raising schemes. Or did these folks think this was actually a good idea? " Speaking of sensitivity - you have no idea how sensitive the trigger is on this sweet baby we're raffling! All the easier to fire those 36 bullets you'll get in those three magazines. Loughner only got off 32 shots. Think you can do better? Then give us your money."
  18. Every once in a while, a politician has the nerve to say what's really on his mind and not care about the consequences. Such is the case with Senator John McCain who accurately noted that our gun laws need to be more strict, not less strict, in order to stop trafficking of guns to Mexico. 
  19. Three men were shot outside of a New Jersey bar by another man with an assault rifle. Why do people carry assault rifles on the streets again? Can you conceal one of those? Can you actually legally carry one on the streets?
  20. Yet another shooting in Minneapolis has taken the life of a teen-ager and wounded another man. This area of Minneapolis has suffered from more than its' share of gun deaths in the last few weeks. Guns in our neighborhoods are dangerous.
  21. Again, guns and alcohol don't mix, even for an off duty police officer. This Washington D.C. cop has been charged in a shooting when he fired shots into a car with 5 people inside, injuring one. Can you just shoot a gun into a carful of people? 
  22. What kind of country do we live in when the gun industry benefits from a Presidential election? They love President Obama because fears of guns being confiscated are running stupidly rampant. " But it does capture the industry’s strange predicament: If gun makers work too hard to defeat Obama, they may be shooting themselves in the foot." Ouch. Commenters on this blog tell me that they fear riots and so need their guns just in case. Or they are ready to live in some sort of retro world where everyone needs a gun in case of tyranny or a take-over by a hostile dictator or country. Yup. It's a crazy world out there. More people get shot in a given day by people they know ( 32 gun homicides daily in the U.S. and 80 total gun deaths) and love than anyone getting shot by a tyrannical dictator or some "jack- booted government thugs" coming to take guns away ( that would be 0). 

31 comments:

  1. "Why don't gun manufacturers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island like the idea of tracing a bullet back to its' original source? If we want to prevent gun deaths and injuries and cut down on illegal trafficking, tracing guns and bullets to their origin is one way to find the "bad guys". "

    Because microstamping doesn't work - the technology is easy to defeat (look at revolvers for example). It's just another way to backdoor gun control into the equation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Several threads are woven into this story about a Wisconsin man who was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. First, the newly passed Wisconsin right to carry law does not go into affect until November 1st. Second, the man had been drinking would have been in violation of the law had it been in affect. "

    This is not correct.

    Under the WI carry law that goes into effect on 11/1, you can drink while carrying a firearm under a WI license as long as you are not in a "tavern", as defined by WI law, and that you are not unduly under the influence - the law has a specific definition for what that means.

    Having a drink or two doesn't likely qualify.

    Here's a trivia question for you - can you drink while carrying a firearm in MN on a MN permit?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Three men were shot outside of a New Jersey bar by another man with an assault rifle. Why do people carry assault rifles on the streets again? Can you conceal one of those? Can you actually legally carry one on the streets?"

    In New Jersey, highly unlikely that you can, but I'm not overly familar with NJ laws.

    In Minnesota, with a permit to carry, yes, you can carry a rifle, shotgun, or a handgun on the street. Open or concealed.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Why do people with concealed loaded guns need them when going to apply for a drivers' license or do business with County officials?"

    My life doesn't become any less valuable when I'm renewing my drivers license.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Here's a trivia question for you - can you drink while carrying a firearm in MN on a MN permit?"

    The BAC limit for carrying under the terms of a permit to carry, in Minnesota, is 0.04.

    Which means most adult males could probably get away with one beer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You missed this shooting here in MN

    http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/15393262/trooper-shoots-woman-who-tries-to-flee-during-94-traffic-stop

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Why don't gun manufacturers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island like the idea of tracing a bullet back to its' original source? If we want to prevent gun deaths and injuries and cut down on illegal trafficking, tracing guns and bullets to their origin is one way to find the "bad guys". Are the manufacturers afraid that they might be found guilty of wrong doing?"

    Could it be because microstamping is not a viable technology at this time. California passed microstamping in 2007 and it was supposed to go into effect in January 2010. The California attorney general has not yet certified the law as enforceable.

    Further, although police are exempted from the law because they never shoot anybody many gun manufacturers have told California that they will abandon California as a market if the law is ever enforced and they will also not sell to California law enforcement. Since California certifies guns as "safe" to sell in California if they manufacturers jump through all the hoops they are afraid that selling an "unsafe" gun to California law enforcement will open them up to legal liability if the police ever do shoot someone.

    New York currently has a ballistics database that uses current technology to match shell casings to weapons. It has cost hundreds of millions of dollars and has yet to result in one conviction. New York is thinking of abandoning this. Maryland also has spend hundreds of millions and I believe they have one conviction in 12 years.

    Microstamping is a case of if it doesn't work lets try it again harder. Or else it is a case of "even if it doesn't work if it raises the price of guns it is a good thing."

    If you were a gun manufacturer that was being forced to put a non-existent technology on your guns by the state would you do it or would you move?

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, Anthony, I didn't miss that one. It was so weird. I am wondering what more investigation will tell us about this case. Could the officer have stopped the woman any other way? Could anyone have stopped this woman from dragging the officer? How would this have ended in a different way?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Robin brings up a lot of interesting points regarding the feasibility of microstamping. If it hasn't worked before, what makes the gun control groups think this time it is going to be better? With the federal and state governments strapped for cash the way it is, I don't want to see any law go into effect that can't be shown to be effective.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Could the officer have stopped the woman any other way? Could anyone have stopped this woman from dragging the officer? How would this have ended in a different way?"

    Given the circumstances of the case, I expect this will be ruled a proper use of deadly force by the county attorney following the end of the investigation. Getting dragged by a car down the interstate certainly qualifies for being in fear of one's life and/or great bodily harm under Minnesota law.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The BAC limit for carrying under the terms of a permit to carry, in Minnesota, is 0.04.

    Which means most adult males could probably get away with one beer. "

    Jdege is correct, though I was waiting for someone somewhat less informed to answer the question :)
    b

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bryan- do you think it is a bit arrogant of you to assume that I, being the person who is "less informed" would not know the answer to the question? So don't drink more than one beer when carrying your loaded gun around in public places.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Bryan- do you think it is a bit arrogant of you to assume that I, being the person who is "less informed" would not know the answer to the question? So don't drink more than one beer when carrying your loaded gun around in public places. "

    Who said I was referring to you?

    That said, there have been a number of examples, on this blog, where you've shown that you do not have a strong grasp of the current firearms laws. Case in point in this very post about Wisconsin's new carry law when it relates to alcohol.

    Bryan

    ReplyDelete
  14. IN the past there have been numerous cases of officers being dragged by cars and then either run over by the car or the driver intentionally sideswipes something killing the officer or greatly injurying him/her.

    Could this have been avoided?

    Yes, the woman, who was a drug dealer by accounts in the news, could have not tried to escape.

    She could have just not had drugs in her car in plain sight which caused the officer to ask her to get out of her car.

    She could have stopped fighting with the officer and just stopped the car. Yes, it could have been avoided easily. However, the woman made an awful lot of bad choices that ended getting her shot.

    As to Bryan's comment, in the past you have shown a propensity to miss these sorts of details.

    Further more, the BAC limit is not tied to a number of drinks, its tied to the drinkers size, condition, time frame and other factors. Using a Breathalyzer, I had four beers in 3 hours and not crossed into .03's. Its common misconception that one beer makes one a wild sociopath

    ReplyDelete
  15. ". But never mind, this Indiana grandma just must have her gun when she is with her two year old grandson."

    You totally missed the point of this story. The ban on her carrying her firearm is against the law which the mayor acknowledges. He just doesn't think that the law should be repealed just because it violates state law. I am sure that if state law prohibited carrying a gun but some town passed a law authorizing it, you would go ballistic. The only way that these communities can be forced to remove their illegal laws is either to sue or to do as Florida did. Frankly, I favor the Florida model.

    From the story you linked to ..."Hammond's ordinance was created about 20 years ago, after an estranged husband shot his wife and killed himself in City Hall. But now it directly conflicts with the new state statute that allowed licensed guns in public places.

    McDermott said that while he won't repeal his ordinance, he said he doesn't believe he's violating the law because the local ordinance simply isn't being enforced.

    "We just consider our ordinance null and void," said McDermott. "The fact is we don't check. We don't violate state statute."

    He said he's put his foot down on the issue as a matter of principle.

    "That's what principle gets you. You get sued," he said."

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If you can't get something passed through the legislature, insist that it be a ballot measure. "

    Actually it passed in the house 65-32 which would be a 2/3rds majority if my math is correct. But because Chicago stacked the deck they needed 71-26. It seems to me that the people are just refusing to be stymied by politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bryan- I'm pretty sure you directed this comment to me- " Here's a trivia question for you - can you drink while carrying a firearm in MN on a MN permit?" Who was the "you" in that sentence if not for me. The rest of your comment is your opinion. But thanks for "correcting" me. From the article about the Wisconsin man- " "It also goes without saying that alcohol should never be used when carrying or using a firearm," Payne said. "Your abilities and judgment can be significantly impaired."" So, guess what, this is not just my opinion. But I'm sure you take everything anyone has to say that goes against your philosophy as an error in fact or judgement, You have conveniently chosen to ignore the rest of the article concerning that the man could not legally carry his gun anyway and that he bought it from the back of a truck.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter- are you serious? The fact of the matter is that that woman did not do any of those things. The officer was presented with the situation as it played out not as it could have played out if none of those things had happened. I challenge you to tell me what details I left out. The details are the facts of what actually happened- not what didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Robin- nope I did not miss the point. My point is clear here- Grandmothers don't NEED to carry guns when playing with their grandchildren at parks. That is my opinion. That's pretty clear by what I said. That is always the point of my posts. Sometimes people don't NEED guns everywhere they go. I know that doesn't compute with you but then, nothing I say agrees with your set of beliefs. I am not writing this blog for you guys. I am writing, as I have said hundreds of times before, for the people who are reading the blog who agree with me and who will stand up for common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So then, Robin, the Illinois law did not pass out of the legislature and move on to the Governor for a signature. That was my point. You must have missed that. Why are you picking away at insignificant details? The facts are the facts. When something gets onto a ballot measure, it usually means that it didn't become law in the regular process. What was the point of your feeling as if you had to "correct" me yet again? Your comment was meant to harass me and show that I am just ignorant, right? The latest round of comments here are all the same- finding little picky things in the articles I post to try to make the whole article untrue. It's not working.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A word on mircostamping. The biggest problem with this type of legislation is it ability to become a de facto gun ban- particularly when executed on the state level. California has already passed this legislation and should it go into effect, gun manufactures will have a choice to make; retool to make CA compliant guns, or abandon selling to the market altogether. California may not be a gun loving state, but by virtue of it population size is still a very large gun buying market. Maybe some drop out, maybe others don’t- hard to say (certainly the small ones will abandon CA, but most have already pulled out of the market anyway). But if a state like Rhode Island or Delaware were to pass this, it might make poor financial sense to continue to pursue the market. Those decisions get easier to make when you consider the aggregate effects of continually trying to comply with restrictions thought up by anti-gun state legislators actively working against your industry. So even if they can make microstamping work financially, it may be best to bow out sooner rather than later, if your state legislators have shown nothing but contempt for your product, particularly when there are pro-gun states out there that would be happy to have them. That is what Colt has to consider.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes TS- I'm sure that the law was all about -" restrictions thought up by anti-gun state legislators actively working against your industry." rather than what's good for public safety and solving crimes. But you guys never met a gun law you liked and are always certain that the proposed laws are evil and out to get gun owners or gun dealers.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A word of advice, Bryan, go do something else with your day. It's a beautiful sunny day, maybe rare in September in Minnesota. There are much better things to do than to troll through my blog and find minutia with which you can disagree. I'm off to enjoy my afternoon.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Yes TS- I'm sure that the law was all about -" restrictions thought up by anti-gun state legislators actively working against your industry." rather than what's good for public safety and solving crimes."

    Is it a good tool for solving crimes? I think the jury is still out on that. So far it looks like an expensive boondoggle for states that have tried it and not much more.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joan,

    In response.

    From AP,

    Kalinoff, who has been with the state patrol for 12 years, pulled Doree over for an equipment violation on westbound Interstate 94 in Woodbury between Interstate 694 and Century Avenue, Langer said.

    He had asked her to get out of the vehicle, which is not uncommon practice during a traffic stop, Langer said, but at one point she got back inside her vehicle in an attempt to flee.

    Kalinoff, trying to stop her from driving off, reached in through the passenger side window at the same time Doree took off, he said.

    “Under rapid acceleration, the trooper became hung up halfway inside the vehicle, halfway outside the vehicle and fired his service weapon as he was being dragged down the highway,” Langer said.

    No one else was in the vehicle, Langer said.

    Doree was transported to Regions Hospital, where she died, he said.


    From The Pioneer Press....

    Debra K. Doree, 48, of Landfall, Minn., was taken to Regions Hospital, where she died following the shooting, according to the Ramsey County Medical Examiner.

    The officer, whose identity has not been released, suffered noncritical injuries.

    The incident, which occurred shortly after 1:30 p.m., began as a routine traffic stop, according to the State Patrol.

    The officer pulled Doree over in the Woodbury area on westbound I-94 near Century Avenue for an "equipment violation."

    Lt. Eric Roeske said the officer noticed a large amount of "a crystalline white substance" during the stop and was checking it out when Doree got back into her vehicle and tried to flee.

    The officer's arm became entangled in the steering wheel as Doree drove off.

    The white substance spotted by the officer was later confirmed to be "a very substantial amount of narcotics," Roeske said.

    Doree has no previous criminal record in Minnesota, but her husband, Scott W. Doree, 53, has multiple traffic and criminal convictions, including several fifth-degree marijuana and methamphetamine possessions.

    The identification of the trooper is expected to be released Monday, said Andy Skoogman, spokesman of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

    From Kare11

    Andy Skoogman with the Department of Public Safety says 48-year-old Debra Doree of Landfall, Minn. was the woman fatally shot.

    Around 1:40 p.m., the state trooper pulled over the vehicle Doree was driving in the westbound lanes of I-94 in Oakdale. The trooper was on the passenger's side of the car when the woman began driving off.

    The State Patrol says the trooper tried to stop the woman and was dragged 200 feet with his body hanging out of the window before he shot Doree to stop the vehicle.

    Doree was taken to the hospital where she was pronounced dead. The trooper suffered minor injuries to his wrist, arm and knees.

    Officials believe there were drugs in Doree's vehicle. The incident is under investigation by the BCA.



    You see, my version is correct. Authenticated by three sources.

    She was involved in drugs, she had drugs in the car, and when it was discovered and the officer was going to arrest her, she tried to flee. The officer was stuck in the car window trying to get her to stop and was in fear for his life.

    Had she desired to not get shot, she could have avoided all of the above actions which brought her to that point.

    Certainly the officer involved could have just waved goodbye to her as she raced off, perhaps thats what you wish, that the Police simply ignore drug crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Good grief, Peter. You are nothing if not persistent and argumentative. Of course the whole thing could have been avoided if only..... if only that woman wouldn't have had a violation of some sort, the officer wouldn't have pulled her over.... if only she hadn't decided to have what looked to the officer like drugs in her car, he wouldn't have become suspicious..... if only she hadn't decided to flee, the officer wouldn't have decided that she was guilty of something causing him to reach into her car to stop her.. if only his arm hadn't been caught in the steering wheel when the woman fled he wouldn't have been dragged down the road... if only he had just decided to be dragged down the road he wouldn't have tried to defend himself and keep himself from being killed or badly injured.... if only none of this would have happened, I wouldn't have been writing about it and you wouldn't be trying to argue with me about something so ridiculous it's hard to fathom. Did you realize that we are on the same page here? What the heck are you arguing about? I asked in a comment above what the officer should have done instead. Bryan Strawser actually came forth with my answer- he did what he had to do. I just don't understand what you are arguing about, Peter. I am pretty sure that you would argue with me if I said that sun was out today in Duluth or that the earth was round just for the sake of arguing. We're done with this one. Back off.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Drug "crimes" are another pointless infringement on individual liberty. How did we not learn, in the 1920s, that banning things does not make them disappear.

    Mrs. Doree is another casualty in the stupid war on drugs.

    -Stew

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here's the problem, the devil is in the details.

    your original post regarding this matter.

    Quote: No, Anthony, I didn't miss that one. It was so weird. I am wondering what more investigation will tell us about this case. Could the officer have stopped the woman any other way? Could anyone have stopped this woman from dragging the officer? How would this have ended in a different way? unquote.

    You asked the question how could this have ended in a different way. I provided answers. It was her behavior which forced the Trooper to act as he did. Had she changed her behaviors, non of it would have happened. The Trooper did not, does not have anything with her decision to place herself in a situation where she felt driving off from a trooper was a good idea.

    I do not believe my post was belligerent nor "nitpicking" it was a simple response to your post.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Peter- as always, we are on a different wave length. I was asking a rhetorical question. Your answer was black and white. Of course it would have ended differently if the woman hadn't had drugs and the police officer hadn't stopped her in the first place. That goes without saying. But given the circumstances since it did happen, could the officer have done anything differently once the incident began?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Sometimes people don't NEED guns everywhere they go. I know that doesn't compute with you but then, nothing I say agrees with your set of beliefs."

    I agree with you. Sometimes people don't need guns. Often they don't. Most of the time they don't. We don't differ on that.

    I'll even go so far as to admit that grandmothers _should_ never need to carry a gun. That grandmothers are sometimes raped and murdered in our city parks is an abomination. But we have to live in the world that we live in. We can't wish away what is.

    Where we differ is on whose decision it should be, as to whether she needs a gun.

    I maintain that that grandmother, taking her grandkids to play at the park, is the only person familiar enough with her specific circumstances to make that judgement. That you believe that you are justified in making that judgement for her is, in my mind, is about as close to pure evil as any behavior I've seen.

    It's her life, and her choice.

    Not yours.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If Grandmas want to carry guns in parks while playing with their grandchildren, fine. I don't agree with it and I don't think they need to and I don't understand it given that the gun would more likely be a potential harm to her grandchild than a good defense. Given my "druthers" it would be a rare thing for people to carry loaded guns in public. Most people agree with me.

    ReplyDelete