Thursday Night News and Open Thread

Nancy Lanza's family in New Hampshire held a private funeral service for her today,at the home of her brother, police officer James Champion. About 25 family members attended. (She was cremated.) Here is a picture of the house, posted on James' Facebook page. It was built in 1740 by his mother's ancestor Israel Huse, Sr. He says it is where he grew up and he bought it from his mother in 1995. Nancy and her ex-husband Peter Lanza used to live next door with their sons Ryan and Adam Lanza, until 1998 when they moved to CT. (Some details of the NH family here and here.)

Gun sales are soaring in New Hampshire since the Newtown killings.

Bernard Madoff's brother Peter was sentenced today to ten years in prison. [More....]

Julian Assange says Wikileaks with publish 1 million new documents.

The series finale of Jersey Shore is tonight.

And the winner of X Factor and a $5 million recording contract is.....Tate Stevens. I don't find anything "X" about him. He's a country singer like a dozen other male country singers, with less physical appeal. Simon doesn't look happy.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome

< Quote of the Day | NRA Calls For Armed School Guards >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Child finds loaded gun in movie theater (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:55:52 AM EST
    in Tillamook, Oregon, the morning after it was lost by a guy with a concealed weapons permit. Luckily, the kid uses his brains and doesn't touch the weapon before reporting the discovery. The 61-year-old gun owner ambles in later that evening, wondering if anybody found a gun.

    Tillamook Police Chief Terry Wright said it was a small, semi-automatic weapon with a round in the chamber and the safety off. Had the student picked up the weapon and squeezed the trigger, Wright said, "it could have been catastrophic." But no one was hurt.

    The gun was found by Levi Crabtree and his friend Kolton McKinney.

    "He sat down in his chair and I heard a clunk and there it was," said Levi.

    Kolton was shocked. "Who would do that?" Kolton asked. "Seriously there's a bunch of people who go to that theater and someone put a gun in there."


    I'm just so relieved the 2nd amendment gives dumba$$es the right to own and carry these weapons. I feel tons safer. Don't you?

    Several people I know locally want (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:50:17 AM EST
    Teachers here armed.  Can you imagine teaching, guiding, nurturing, chaperoning 30 unique in their specific challenges students 5 days a week and also being responsible for a loaded gun?  It would be less than a week before the first accidental school shooting.  I just stood there and stared at the idiots speechless.

    The gun owner, a man named Quackenbush, (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    had gone to the movie theater to see The Hobbit.The movie was long and, to him, kind of boring. So, he was fidgeting in his seat and did not notice that the gun he was carrying in a holster on his hip had fallen out of said holster.

    By the time he realized his gun was no longer with him the theater was closed. Quackenbush, whose concealed carry permit has now been revoked, was packing heat at the movies so that he could shoot any gunman who, I guess, might also find the The Hobbit too long and kind of boring and start shooting up the place.

    Quackenbush is pretty miffed that his CC permit  has been revoled. After all, it was an honest mistake. Could have happened to anybody. And, what with all the crazy people running around with guns, why are the authorities going after him, a guy who would gladly shoot it out with any gunman in any public space.


    Portland paper has updated Qyackenbush (none / 0) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    story. This is from this morning's Oregonian. Link.

    Why it's utterly amazing! (1.80 / 5) (#5)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:16:51 AM EST
    The boy -apparently of Junior High School age, so apparently not some toddler -actually had hunter safety classes and actually paid attention in school
    I find that the most amazing part of the whole thing.

    As for the rest, your entire post boils down to "Ooooh. Boom Booms be scary!"

    I can only imagine that if are ever in a motor vehicle being driven through a "concealed carry" state, you probably have someone else drive while you quiver in the trunk, worried about all the bullets that might be flying around.

    Meanwhile, I live in actual dangerous neighborhood where people get killed not just with guns but with knives and I find your constant fear mongering funny as all heck.


    appparently the gun owner (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:25:10 AM EST
    with the concealed carry permit either didn't internalize his gun training or is sloppy,

    The guy was a moron. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    Stupid can't be trained out of people.

    I won't mention his age, too close to mine for comfort, because some priggishly politically correct twit, equally moronic, will be tempted to call me ageist.


    And, if they did, it would be accurate. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    I won't mention his age, too close to mine for comfort, because some priggishly politically correct twit, equally moronic, will be tempted to call me ageist.

    Since you cite no evidence to suggest that his age had anything to do with this irresponsible act.

    And, as an aside, you have no evidence that he is a 'moron' either.


    "...you have no evidence ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by unitron on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 12:09:08 PM EST
    ...that he is a 'moron' either."

    True, he doesn't have the evidence.

    When last we heard, the evidence was in the custody of the Tillamook police.


    "Funny as heck"? (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:06:59 AM EST
    As for the rest, your entire post boils down to "Ooooh. Boom Booms be scary!"

    Actually, what I got out of the post is that:

    1.  Among any population of people (including CCW holders) there are some idiots.

    2.  Some of those idiots will carry their guns with a round in the chamber and the safety off.

    3.  Those same idiots will not always properly secure their guns, thereby placing the lives of others at risk.  Sometimes, they only manage to shoot themselves in the @ss when they drop their guns, but sometimes they shoot someone nearby.

    But your Kindergarten-interpretation says a lot.

    ... just not what you intended.


    Is that the best you can do? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    How embarrassing.

    Yes, I'm sure when someone asks (none / 0) (#87)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    Why that woman was in the trunk and your SO or friend or whomever has to say "Oh, she's just scared of random bullets in gun lovin' states", you probably are pretty embarrassed.

    Zero, you need to lay off the (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    Viagra. It's started rotting your brain.

    I drove a cab at night in the inner (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    city for three years and never carried a gun..

    Roughly half the drivers did and half of them didn't..

    I'm not saying there was a necessary correlation, but from my experience the more crooked the driver was, the more likely he was to pack..


    That part of your life (none / 0) (#124)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    sounds like a great premise for one of Dadler's short stories.

    I still say that a mighty (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:51:28 PM EST
    rain is going to come some day and wash all the scum and slime from those streets..

    I heard Wayne Lapierre say that once..


    joke.. (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    line from Taxi Driver, in case anyone was wondering.

    I am absolutely astonished. (4.43 / 7) (#10)
    by hornplayer on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:29:02 AM EST
    "Boom Booms be scary"?  Seriously?  You have got to be kidding me.  This is a child whose life was needlessly endangered by a gun, left behind in a public area, with the safety off.  Yes, firearms are indeed scary--if you don't think so, you're obviously lacking in critical thinking, reasoning, and judgment, and are a prime candidate for exemplifying why the United States' gun-fetishist culture is so dangerous.  This child, his friend, or any number of people in the theater could have died when the gun fell from the seat to the floor, with the safety off.

    The gun was left behind by a licensed individual who did not bother to retrieve the weapon until nearly 24 hours had passed, and on top of it, did not bother to put the safety on while carrying the gun in a public area.  I suppose it was more important that the old man get his sleep and be able to defend himself against any would-be Aurora, CO copycats.

    Please think before you post blatantly insulting comments with a total disregard for human lives needlessly being put on the line.  It is insensitive, callous, and an incredibly immature way to address a life-and-death topic.


    Another misconception about guns (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by me only on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 07:44:35 AM EST
    Hollywood is not real life.  Modern semi-automatic weapons don't fire when dropped to the ground.

    Regardless... (none / 0) (#24)
    by hornplayer on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:27:15 AM EST
    It's not impossible for there to have been an accidental discharge, period.  We have no way of knowing exactly what kind of condition the gun may or may not have been in.  I think we can ill-afford to rely on gun manufacturers to prevent accidental discharge, short of putting those gun manufacturers out of business.

    The kid could choke on popcorn (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by me only on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    Impossible is not a reasonable standard.  It is not even close to a reasonable standard.

    "Acceptable Risk" (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by hornplayer on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:46:46 AM EST
    I would trust my child with a bucket of popcorn to not injure or kill themselves or others.  I would not trust them in the presence of a semi-automatic handgun, unsupervised, with the safety off.  Would you?

    I have relatives in West Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    And us city boys (me and my brothers) used to go up there several times a year to hang out at a family campsite, fish, and all that. It even included some target practice. I handled my first rifle (AR15, civilian version of the M16 rifle) at 11. I was probably a few years younger than that kid.
    Oh, and I was of course taught firearms safety and etc. Surprisingly, the vast majority of kids over 10 or so are not going to blow their heads (or someone else's heads off) simply because they get exposure to guns.

    Oh well, personal anecdote and all that.


    Slayersrezo, (none / 0) (#92)
    by hornplayer on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    What in my comment warranted a troll rating, other than you disagreeing with my statement?

    hornplayer (none / 0) (#98)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:37:25 PM EST
    I had nothing to do with your rating.
    I try not to respond to trolls, which is why I'm candidly ignoring Yman.

    Slayersrezo, you did (none / 0) (#100)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 04:22:14 PM EST
    give hornplayer a 1 rating on his/her comment #10.  See Link.
    You can check anyone's comment history by clicking on their username, and then click on their rating in a particular comment to see who rated them, and how they were rated.

    Thanks Zorba (none / 0) (#101)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:09:25 PM EST
    I actually didn't know that.
    And you say 1 is "troll" rating?
    I often give ones to balance out fives esp when fives are given out of ideological lockstep and not because they link to actual studies/surveys etc.
    Now I'm conflicted. I could give 2's instead..that might work as it will at least give a combined rating less than perfection. Problem is some 5 posts consist of literally nothing but unbacked up assertions and insults, not what I regard as a five post -which should be well-argued and either bring an entirely different perspective or bring in sets of facts for analysis.

    So I guess the ratings system is being abused.

    Yeah, people on here I regard as trolls I don't respond to at all. So to put it out there: I do not regard hornplayer as a troll. Yet, anyway(don't know this person). And if I do I'll simply stop responding.


    Make it easy on yourself, (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    ignore the whole rating system. You can choose to not have the rating options by setting the "Rate?" button to "No" at the top of the page. Makes it easier to scan comments, too, as you'll get many more on your screen at one time.

    I did not personally say that (none / 0) (#110)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    a 1 is a "troll" rating, but that is how it is often perceived around here.  And if you want to balance a 5 that you do not agree with, you may certainly down-rate that post; it's your opinion, and your right to do so.  Perhaps, indeed, a 2 might suffice for your purposes.  But then, I'm not the blog owner, so what the he!! do I know?
    I seldom agree with you, Slayer, but but I defend your right to your own opinions.  If we cannot disagree with each other and post our differing opinions, then all we become is an echo chamber, and that's d@mned boring.
    Peace, my brother.  Namaste.   ;-)  

    You're "ignoring me" ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:36:17 PM EST
    ... because you're unable to answer my questions.  No evidence, no logic ...

    I'd ignore them, too, ...

    ... if I was you.


    The "vast majority" - heh (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    As for the rest, ... oh, well ...

    Reasonable Standard (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by vicndabx on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    don't roll around w/the safety off on your gun.  Don't lose your gun.  Go back and get it as soon as you realize you lost it.



    But choking on popcorn in a movie (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:30:47 AM EST
    theater is a risk one can reasonably identify and take precautions against; the accidental discharge of a gun in a movie theater is neither a reasonably identifiable risk nor is it something one can take reasonable precautions against.  Do you suppose we should now add saying, "don't forget to check on and under your seat to make sure there are no guns!" to the list of things parents say to kids who are going to the movies?  Or be something adults should now be thinking about when they go to the movies?

    It occurs to me that you could drop your keyboard and break it, and in picking it up, cut yourself, leading to your developing a strep infection that could kill you!  Maybe you should back away from the keyboard for your own safety!


    Boom booms be scary.. (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    what scary is these ed-afflicted, midlife crisis types who wanna build forts in the woods and chase each other around with AR 15s..

    And then go off one day because their whole life everyone was out to get them..


    People who own firearms should ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:42:39 PM EST
    ... be compelled to assume personal legal responsibility for their weapons' present whereabouts at all times.

    I'm sorry, but a handgun is not the functional equivalent of the common household flashlight. You don't misplace or lose it anywhere, let alone accidentally leave it in a restaurant booth. You don't walk around with one in public, concealed or otherwise, and think that it means you're now somehow in charge. You don't lend it to others, even to your otherwise trustworthy spouse or close relative. And you most certainly don't leave it in the glove compartment of your car, in the top drawer of your desk at work, or in a shoebox under your bed at home.

    I believe that at a minimum, any licensed gun owner who experiences a known custody issue with his or her weapon should have that gun license immediately suspended. Once that firearm is located, it should be immediately confiscated by the authorities, along with any other weapons known to be in the possession of said owner. Further, both license and weapons should be returned to that owner only under written court order.

    If it's found that said firearm was subsequently used in the commission of a felony, then criminal charges reflecting loss of custody should similarly follow against the dumba$$ who knowingly or unknowingly lost or misplaced his or her weapon in the first place, and levied at the discretion of the authorities and / or the court.

    Possession of a firearm should have a known legal consequence that accompanies any perceived benefit to the owner, who need to take their responsibilities seriously.



    What I don't understand is why (none / 0) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    it took Quackenbush so long to realize his gun was no longer in the holster he was wearing on his hip. How did he not notice the gun's absence almost immediately?

    Granted, my experience with guns in holsters ended in 1959 when I parted ways with my Annie Oakley six-shooter. Still, that pistol was hardly featherlight. I'd have noticed if it fell out of the holster.


    Lapierre (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by vicndabx on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    let's get us some guns in schools.


    tone deaf.

    I wonder if they hired that protester... (none / 0) (#33)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:17:01 AM EST
    ...since he interrupted just as Lapierre sounded like he was headed towards "It's not the guns that are the problem, it's the lack of armed guards everywhere, and more armed guards to arm them."

    And now it's all the fault of video games, which I guess explains the guy in the bell tower at U-Texas, Austin, back in '66.

    And right on time cue the next "protester" to garner sympathy for ol' Wayne as he segues to blaming the news media, which somehow by not knowing as much about guns as they should before reporting on them are really the ones that made those bullets lethal.

    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"

    Guess keeping the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place is less desireable than having a shootout.


    Even for the NRA, this was (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    an amazingly pathetic statement.

    I know. If they're paying this guy ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    ... seven figures, they need to seriously consider first moving the decimal point two places to the left, and then handing him a mop and broom.

    As a side note of fun (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:34:48 AM EST
    Early next year, the senior Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be Elizabeth Warren.

    Let us hope... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    she is not a small room in Langley right now listening to "Enter Sandman" on 11 for 12 hours straight, being re-programmed;)

    A big chunk of the people... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:40:37 AM EST
    ...who want to keep high capacity clips on the market, and a big chunk of the people who insist on no new taxes and let's get rid of the old ones as well, are, I strongly suspect, the same people, so where do we get the money for extra police at every school door when states and communities are having a rough time keeping from having to lay off the cops and teachers they already have because of low tax revenues?

    the brilliant plan . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    relies on armed volunteers

    excellent point (none / 0) (#45)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:01:30 AM EST
      The county schools system where I live operates 71 separate facilities in a county with a population of approximately 180,000 people.

      Even allowing that schools don't operate around the clock, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, that would require a huge increase in manpower.

      The county sheriff employs 101 deputies total. (not all of those are in law enforcement and of course some number are also supervisory rather than in the field.)

      Just VERY VERY conservatively guesstimating that adding 35 deputies could provide manpower to station  a deputy at each school while in session, it would require a 35% increase in numbers without reducing other law enforcement coverage.

      This situation would be far more of a financial problem in some of the small counties. For example, the lowest popiulation  county in this state operates 9 schools and has  4 deputies. In other words, it would have   to  more than double the force just  to cover the schools and even with that there would be no deputies available for any other purpose while school is in session.

      As very low population counties tend to correspond with rural which tends to correspond with not wealthy, the problem is apparent.



    I'm thinking that rural... (none / 0) (#51)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    ...may even correspond to more guns per person among the population (even if fewer per square mile) as well, so that's more theoretical potential attackers for those guards to have to worry about.

    I like Tate Stevens and am glad he won. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:14:38 PM EST
    America apparently liked him too.  Besides being a talented singer he also has a great story.  

    Hard not to like either of the two finalists, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:44:06 AM EST
    and my theory is that his story is one of the reasons a lot of people may have decided that at 37, Tate Stevens needed the win more than 13-yr old Carly, who is going to have an amazing future even without it.  How could she not?  Aside from her amazing voice, she seems like she really has her head on right.

    I kind of got hooked on the show by accident - it was one of the audition nights, and as it turned out, was the one where Carly did hers.  I remember thinking then that, if her voice and performance wasn't some kind of fluke, she was going to go deep into the competition.  All in all, I think I like this show way more than American Idol, mainly because of the age range and the inclusion of groups.

    On a side - and kind of petty - note, I do really, really hope that Khloe Kardashian Odom either learns how to sound like she's not reading her lines, or finds something else to do, because she was just dreadful.  Even her non-scripted moments sounded forced.  And whoever decided that clothes that looked like they had been sprayed on her was a good idea also needs to go.


    I liked them both from the start, but I was always (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:22:13 AM EST
    partial to Tate.  My late father was a musician and I grew up listening to him play and sing country music in our house.  Jeralyn said Simon didn't look happy but I thought he did, just watched the tape again and he was smiling and then swaying to the music when Tate sang Tomorrow.  Guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.  Agree about Khloe, not sure why she's even there, Mario does a fine job by himself.

    Hmmmm -- you mentioned Tate Stevens ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:12:59 PM EST
    ...and I immediately thought of the advertising firm where Darren worked in "Bewitched." Don't ask me why. Must be faulty wiring.

    Wasn't "Larry Tate" the name of (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    Darren's boss at the agency?

    Yep... (none / 0) (#119)
    by unitron on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    ...husband of Louise.

    Good memory (none / 0) (#120)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    ASDF (none / 0) (#2)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:49:34 PM EST
    Nancy Lanza introduced her son to guns, taught him about gun safety, and how to shoot straight at the gun range. He shot straight. Gun-related education is not the (whole) answer.

    I don't think gun laws (3.67 / 3) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:10:19 AM EST
    will make any difference -- as I've said many times before. Addressing mental health issues would do much more, and despite the media obsession with gun control, the latest Gallup poll after the shooting shows most Americans don't agree gun control is a very effective solution to school shootings. And according to this 2012 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of child homicides at schools has declined by about 50% since 1993. (p.94.)

    The Newtown tragedy will probably result in new laws, none of which will prevent or even reduce gun violence. It's just another example of people going for a band-aid and refusing to treat the wound.


    Sure, addressing mental health (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by observed on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:57:58 AM EST
    issues is important, but
    are you really saying you don't want to restrict sales of military grade weapons to the general public??
    And if that's your position, then why can't I own a rocket launcher or anti-tank weapon? Where does the right to bear arms stop?
    Finally, I don't know about studies showing that addressing mental health issues will stop school shootings. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that levels of gun ownership and violence are tightly linked; moreover, people who have guns when they are assaulted are far more likely to be shot. Having a gun does not reduce one's risk of being shot---in fact, it does just the opposite.

    Finally, you note that school shootings are down.
    What are the statistics on mass shootings in general?


    Officers in the military carry sidearms (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by me only on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 07:47:33 AM EST
    I think today they are 0.40 caliber.  Since that is a military grade weapon should that be restricted?

    Oh and the Marines still carry knives...


    Military officers do not carry sidearms (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    Unless they are in combat.  The only people allowed to carry a weapon on their person on posts and bases are MPs.  When you leave for combat or return from combat there is a specific point were the weapons are given to the soldiers or retrieved from them, it is usually right after you say good bye to your family or during the preparation to return to your family or those who are greeting you upon your return.  You are allowed to bring your personal weapons on base or post to go to a range and practice, but when you aren't practicing the weapons must be secured, not out in the open and definitely not packed around on your person.  If you live on post here your weapons must be stored in an on post gun lock up, you remove them for hunting or practicing on range but you are not allowed to store them in your on post housing.....end of discussion.

    My husband keeps his beat up issued piece of old junk sidearm at home though because we don't live on post.  It has no ammo though because he isn't issued any for it unless he is going into a combat zone and he would not get that ammo until he had left civilian life behind.  I don't even think it has a magazine with it.


    My stepgrandfather kept no weapons (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    in his home after he retired from the Army.  He'd survived several tours of Korea and Vietnam and once he didn't need those tools anymore, good riddance.

    The deep prejudices and stereotypes held by a lot of non-military, including a lot of people around here, leave them blind to the common ground that we all share with most people who've chosen a military career.

    I think we'd be a lot better off with universal service exemplified by countries like Switzerland and Israel.  Put everybody on the same footing, including the rich.  We are insulated from each other by economic fortune and it's getting worse.

    Allowing somebody else to do all your (society's) fighting is like allowing somebody else to do all the "protecting" of your home and person, an invitation to an authoritarian society.


    Same with all the men in my family (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    who served in WWII or Korea. Not one carried--or even owned--a firearm after they returned to civilian life.

    If only the people arguing for (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    All the guns you want regulated them the same way that those they classify as "trained killers" do.  If you want live stupid with guns you have to get outside the fence around of an American base or post and out of the jurisdiction of MPs.  It is a weird phenomenon watching some of the gun conversation vs. the myths held by some about military life.  You want to experience some stateside civilian gun regulation though, join the military.

    The arguments regarding guns (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    in this site are getting weirder and weirder each day. People are blithely comparing issues regarding gun safety with auto safety because of auto accidents. This is the first time in my life that I am learning that the primary purpose of cars is to kill!

    "Military grade" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:17:04 AM EST
    MPs also carry batons, but I don't think that's what observed meant when he/she referred to "military grade" weapons - perhaps if you look at the provided examples (rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons).

    If I looked at the examples the comment (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by me only on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:12:36 AM EST
    makes no sense.  Title II weapons are already regulated.

    That's the point (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:48:37 PM EST
    If (as anti-gun-control advocates insist) the 2nd Amendment protects their right to own arms that didn't even exist at the time it as written (AR-15s, etc.), why doesn't it apply to fully automatic weapons?  Why not grenades?  Roceaunchers?  Anti-tank weapons?  Missiles?  Anthrax?  Nuclear bombs?

    Makes no sense to arbitrarily choose assault weapons (or even semi-automatics) as the place to draw the line.


    Hmm (2.33 / 3) (#7)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:28:39 AM EST
    Jeralyn repeatedly mentions guns, not weapons in general. Nowhere in her entire post will you see a mention of rocket launchers or tanks or anything of that type.

    Also just because you claim that there is "plenty of evidence" that levels of gun ownership and violence are "tightly linked", doesn't make it so. I can easily disprove that in my own state by giving you a county by county gun and crime breakdown. You might want to rethink that statement, or at least add some sort of caveat for apparently there are all sorts of other variables that factor into levels of violent gun crime.


    Read my comment from a few hours ago (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by observed on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:56:50 AM EST
    it has the link to the public health study on gun ownership.
    Just because YOU think gun ownership isn't dangerous, doesn't make it so.

    As far as the other part of your comment, what is a "gun"? Is the weapon that Adam Lanza used a "gun"?
    According to Peter G, who knows  a lot more about constitutional law than you or I, the answer to my question about ownership of heavy weapons isn't cle
    Is Jeralyn in favor of restricting sales of any weapons which are currently available, or not?
    I know that you favor some restrictions, which puts us in agreement on one point.

    By the way, I did a little bit of digging on your claim that the majority of gun murders in the US are  drug related. The searches I did showed your claim to be WAY off. I could be wrong, but you are the one making the claim.
    Would you mind posting some evidence?


    I couldn't find your comment from a few hours ago (none / 0) (#88)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    Could you provide a link, or even just a google term? Thanks.

    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:11:23 AM EST
    Jeralyn repeatedly mentions guns, not weapons in general. Nowhere in her entire post will you see a mention of rocket launchers or tanks or anything of that type.

    But follow the logic.  The 2nd Amendment refers to "arms".  If the 2nd Amendment isn't limited to muskets and swords (the weapons of the Founder's era), why does it arbitrarily stop with semi-automatic weapons?  Why not machine guns, tanks, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.?


    According to your link, 63% of Americans (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by jtaylorr on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:48:17 AM EST
    think banning assault and semi-automatic weapons would be very effective or somewhat effective. Only 36% percent said it would not be effective.
    When you start sounding like Fox News spin, maybe it's time to take a step back.

    How does a poll indicating (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:20:40 AM EST
     63% of respondents think it would be effective transalte into most Americans not agreeing gun control is an effective solution?

      I'm also not sure how the "hey we used to have more dead children" argument supports the idea that children being shot to death at schoolsis no longer a problem.

      There may exist a radical lunatic fringe that believes the lesser number of child corpses still presents a problem society should address.


    Not "since 1993," exactly (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:38:50 AM EST
    since the stats that you link end with 2010.

    That category called "Homicides at School," under "Youths Aged 5 to 18" has reversed with Newtown to show an increase to at least 20 in 2012.

    Thus, this evidence does not support the argument.


    ... to be held mutually exclusive for purposes of this debate, in that we can have either one or the other, but not both?

    Guns don't kill people, (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 06:37:38 AM EST
    arrows and machetes kill people:  link

    And popcorn. (3.00 / 2) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    It is estimated between 170-190 people die per year from choking on popcorn, making it one of the top 5 most dangerous snack.

    And that's like a... real rational comparison (none / 0) (#75)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    to the nearly 9,000 in the U.S. that died by gun murder last year.

    False equivalencies are fun!


    oculus, to whom I was responding, (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    has a sense of humor. I assume you do to, although it's not much in evidence here...

    I laugh at things that are funny (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoephone on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:26:07 PM EST
    You rarely are.

    Oooh, snap! (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    Take that! (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    Well yes (none / 0) (#89)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    Comparing MURDER to ACCIDENTS is some funny shoephone logic!
    How many people (including lil tots!) die from accidental firearms deaths? That would be the more apt comparison.

    592 in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:53:28 PM EST
    23,237 non-fatal firearms injuries.

    How many popcorn injuries?


    That includes only accidental ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    ... injuries, not intentional shooting injuries.

    Yet another (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:27:42 AM EST
    "Yet ANOTHER"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:55:54 PM EST
    How many is that now?



    More than that (none / 0) (#112)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:26:19 AM EST
    Ohhhhhhh, ... "voter fraud" generically (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    and on the local level ... something much more common that's been going on since the country was founded.  Vote buying, bribery, quid-pro-quo with city officials, etc.


    I thought you were trying to suggest there was some sort of ongoing problem of "voter fraud" which could be addressed by photo ID laws.

    But from your examples, I can see that's not the case.


    Twelve! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 04:47:14 PM EST
    You missed one here that's been expanded to focus on a Republican firm in VA.

    Thirteen! Fourteen! (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    Two more Republicans arrested for voting twice to "test" for voter fraud.

    If only there were photo ID laws, ...

    ... they wouldn't have been tempted!


    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#121)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    Voter fraud is a bipartisan sport, and found all across the country.

    At least he's not talking (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    about the massive vote-rigging conspiracy engineered by twelve New Black Panthers and eight people from ACORN..

    Boehner has single handedly (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:29:42 AM EST
    caused the world markets to take a bath today. 24 of 26 stock exchanges across Europe, Asia, and the Americas are falling as the Dow gets ready to open down about 200 points (which will make it 25 of 27 headed down). Only Argentina and Scandinavia across the globe appear to be immune from the Boehner blunder.

    Not sure about the single handed part (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    He has help from the whack jobs in his caucus. The GOP strategy of protecting every House seat for the GOP is coming back to haunt him. With no Dem competition for most seats, the intransigence3. is only reinforced.

    Absolutely agree (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    gerrymandering takes the goal of compromise and throws it out the window as seen last night with the Republicans in the House.

    But what's to be learned from this also holds true in the Dem caucus. To tweak a line from Robert Fulgham... When you go to Washington DC, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.


    How will this effect the negotiations? (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:01:18 AM EST
    There is the possibility that the President will believe this drop is a reason to offer Boehner the additional concessions the Republicans have demanded to make a deal.

    When both (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 09:28:42 AM EST
    Jennifer Rubin and Forbes magazine trash the Republicans, I think the Dems sit back and look like moderates and have a great holiday.

    from Forbes:

    The sheer folly of Boehner's efforts is reflected in his imagining that his taking three of his GOP renegades into the public square and executing them via taking away their committee seats would somehow bring the remaining extremists in line. These people don't care about committee seats. They seek only the platform to pursue an agenda designed to stymie progress and could not care less about  pursuing the hard work of Congressional committees that are intended to do the job of moving the country forward.

    from Rubin:

    This sort of display suggests Republicans are not capable of governing. What was an argument by Democrats (They are unreasonable! They only care for the rich!) is now a political reality.

    btw, Forbes suggests that the GOP hand is so weak after turning down the last Obama offer, Boehner should offer up $300 billion in defense cuts, grab a handful of Republicans to vote with all the Dems, and call it a day.


    Charlie Pierce on Boehner (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    Still bringing it.

    "Feral children". Perfect.


    Paul Krugman, in today's NYT column, (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    writes of the sinking feeling progressives had as the Obama administration made a budget offer that involved giving way on issues where it had promised to hold the line (high income Bush tax rates and effectively cutting social security benefits) And, he reminds, this was an offer, not a deal. According to Professor Krugman, the Republican crazies are doing Mr. Obama a favor, heading off any temptation he may have felt to give away the store in pursuit of bipartisan dreams.

    I think that Krugman may be (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    underestimating the president's tenaciousness in pursuing his goal.

    I sure do wish you were wrong... (none / 0) (#38)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    ...I sure do fear that you're not.

    Progressives may be (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    over-reacting on social security cuts by the Obama Administration.  After all, it comes with a guarantee. cf. Vice President Biden, 'Coffee Break Cafe, Stuart, VA, August 2012': "there will be no changes to social security.  Number one, I guarantee you, flat guarantee, there will be no change in social security.  I flat guarantee you."

    It still just boggles my mind that these (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    Democrats don't understand that the only thing that ever satisfies Republicans is for them to get everything they want - that is their definition of "compromise."

    Boehner's looking ridiculously weak, and what I'm afraid we're doomed to see next is Obama "helping" Boehner by erasing the apparently always-moving line-in-the-sand.  Again.

    What Obama should be doing is taking these compromise deals off the table and putting the original one back on, but that's about as likely to happen as pigs flying.


    Yes, President Obama (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:53:43 PM EST
    and the Democrats seem to be determined to resuscitate the Republican corpse.  

    I guess the proof will be in the pudding (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    The Republicans have put themselves in a holy mess with this Plan B debacle. They now have less than zero leverage. They are a national laughingstock. A majority of the country now thinks they are "too extreme." They just got walloped in the election. And with the tax cuts set to expire the laws are rigged against them as well.

    There is only one person who can rescue the Republican Party now -- Barack Obama.......link

    NRA Speech (none / 0) (#43)
    by vicndabx on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    Transcript at Washington Post

    Unbelievable: blame politicians, (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    "Monsters, movies, video games, music videos, and place an armed guard in every school.  Simple.

    The answers are easy (none / 0) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    when one wants to avoid the question.

    No questions permitted! (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    Has anyone watched Mr LaPierre's show?


    LaPierre hosts Crime Strike, a syndicated weekly television program which advocates gun use for the purpose of self-defense and highlights situations where people have used their guns against criminal suspects.  [Wiki excerpt.]


    You left out... (none / 0) (#50)
    by unitron on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:34:21 AM EST
    ...blame the news media.

    A shooting rampage near Altoona killed 4 (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    DURING the press conference. Can we stop listening to these people now?

    I wish we could (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    But they're going to continue to spout off.  Unfortunately.  
    I'm not sure how many dead bodies would have to pile up before they changed their minds.  As far as I can tell, every shooting rampage just makes them more convinced than ever that even more people should carry guns, everywhere, to protect themselves.  :-(

    Come on Zorba you are being irrational (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    After all, all those people could have choked to death on popcorn while watching a movie. :o(

    Even gun owners (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    on another blog that I frequent are appalled by this NRA "plan" today.

    I'm surprised that the NRA does not suggest that the obvious solution is to ban schools.  


    Charter Christian schools (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    with armed guards and teachers are what they have in mind.

    Guns and God! (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    The perfect environment for teaching our children.

    On a postive note (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    It's December 21, the world did not end, and I guess the Mayans were wrong.  Or those who misinterpreted the whole Mayan Calendar thing were wrong, at any rate.     ;-)

    I vote for door #2 (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    "...those who misinterpreted the whole Mayan Calendar thing were wrong..."

    I'm still worried. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    The calendar on my desk ends Dec 31.  Although there is a little box in its corner that runs through Jan 3l, so maybe I can relax, a little.

    Obviously, KeysDan, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    the "little box in the corner" that is January means that the world will only have mostly died after December 31, but will finish dying after January 31.

    Miss Peggy Lee on the Mayan Apocalypse: (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:54:40 PM EST
    Watched a little Mayan Calendar (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    Doomsday prep stuff last night on The History Channel -- Brad Meltzer's Decoded -- to work up some enthusiasm for the End of the World today.

    I'm still fascinated by the lengths some people out there are going to prepare for the coming Apocalypse.  This episode featured one 30 something family from WI that had built a 2-storey deep underground bunker to shield from a nuclear war.

    A year's supply of food, the usual well-stocked supply of guns and ammo.  Full kitchen, aluminum sink, oven and microwave.

    And 42-inch widescreen tv to watch videos and dvds in the small family room.

    Another couple profiled from SoCal were preparing Plan B -- evacuate on bike with plenty of supplies, including flak jackets and shotguns.  They had apparently mapped out a route to TX which would take them past secret re-supply stations known only to Doomsday Preppers who paid their dues presumably.  In WI, iirc, the price to access these secret supply stations is a mere $50k for adults, $35k for kiddies.  No discount for seniors.

    I think we'll survive today.  Some major incidents affecting our power grid this major solar cycle could be problematic in coming months.  And we still have until 2029 and 2036 to work out how to deflect the most dire threat to the planet externally, Asteroid Aphophis, which the Russian and Chinese scientists are taking more seriously than our'n.

    Yeah, thank you Tim LaHaye.. (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    What I don't get is why Americans are so addicted to these destructive, Twilight Of the Idols interpretations of mythology..

    Some sick, entropic, death wish-death-instinct? I think so.



    I like the microwave (none / 0) (#63)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    and widescreen TV, there.  If a true apocalypse were to happen, do they really expect that there will still be electricity generated?  Even if they have generators, once the gas runs out, it's out- nobody would be pumping and refining more gas.  Do they have a wood stove, access to wood?  Do they know how to make their own bullets, when they run out?  Will they have access to the proper materials to make those replacement bullets?  And on and on and on........  
    Oh, well, you can't fix stupid.

    Secret Resupply Stations (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    will be the first thing raided by hordes of gun-owners.




    Good. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    Maybe they'll fight each other over possession and shoot it out with one another, thus thinning the herd and leaving more for the rest of us.

    We had A- bomb shelters when I was a kid... (none / 0) (#111)
    by fishcamp on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:27:41 PM EST
    Three pm west coast, still (none / 0) (#103)
    by brodie on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    no air raid sirens going off, no interruptions on radio or tv from Conalrad alerting us to take shelter from incoming missiles or asteroids or deadly gamma ray bursts from the center of the galaxy.

    I'm beginning to feel we might make it through the day in pretty good shape.

    So maybe the only things we have to fear, besides fear itself, are things as mundane as Obama and Dem leaders caving again to the Rs on cuts to vital safety net programs..