Register

Author Topic: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?  (Read 39516 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sls.stormyrider

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 15151
  • Karma: 1042
  • Gender: Male
  • Let there be songs to fill the air
    • music list
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #165 on: July 23, 2012, 10:46:06 PM »
true - but you need to be careful. don't want to ruin the venison steaks
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

Offline phil

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4750
  • Karma: 144
  • Gender: Male
  • Shrimpdogg Krillionaire
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #166 on: July 23, 2012, 10:47:00 PM »
true - but you need to be careful. don't want to ruin the venison steaks

Think of how much you'll save on meat tenderizer by hunting with an RPG
sure we tend to ramble, but that was a 3 page off topic tangent on crack and doses for breakfast?

Hey, I don't know anything. Please help.

Offline runawayjimbo

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4831
  • Karma: 187
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #167 on: July 24, 2012, 12:14:51 AM »
But then let's not misconstrue the argument. Many of us here are not asking for an outright ban on weapons. We wish simply to qualify the second amendment; laws being living things that evolve over time alongside our own re-interpretations of humanity and its existence. That being said, to be governed and receive the benefits of governance, such as security, property rights etc.. (Lockian), we must relinquish some of our liberties. Now, if you are a pure libertarian wishing for a return to the state of nature, then the relinquishing of any right is a problem. However, for most of us, anarchy is not a whole lot of fun.

Really? You weren't getting that "guns are evil" vibe? :wink:

Again, if I wasn't clear let me reiterate that I don't think people need military style weapons, I just don't believe the gov't has the authority to place an embargo on them. That'd be as crazy as, I don't know, making everybody buy a contract from a private comp...

And I'm no an anarchist, but I don't believe it's a good idea to relinquish any liberties, especially if you're getting such a shitty ROI. The gov't derives its legitimacy from the people's inherent rights, so taking one of those rights away cannot be a benefit. I guess the fundamental difference between our views is that society has been conditioned to trust gov't in the last 100 yrs and overwhelmingly people do. I, for better or worse, do not share this sentiment.

Ultimately, why I take issue with an armed citizenry such as yours, is that if the country were to go through a traumatic upheaval, such as another Great Depression, would the state fall into anarchic armed pockets, fracturing to a point where a central government is no longer able to regain the control necessary for its ensuing stabilization. Now, such an apocalyptic event will hardly occur in our lifetimes, but revolution is an eternal renewing process of the state, much like forest fires restart nature's cycle of life. However, if the destruction is complete, the renewal is inevitably much harder. Should you doubt this happenstance, there are many countries that have born witness to a citizenry that has turned its arms on each other, places where reconciliation is no longer possible, at least not for the foreseeable future. Algeria, Afghanistan, Angola and that's just the A's. Lest it be forgotten, the 2nd most powerful nation in the world today nearly tore itself to pieces 60 years ago, a blink of one's eye in the context of human history. Secondly, can you imagine the potential for destruction and death if the Greeks were presently armed to the teeth.           

While I am one who believes in Jefferson's quote: "when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty" - I would still rather see the fear come from the ballot box, as opposed to light infantry weapons.   

How about "That gov't is best which governs least"? (fun fact: not actually Jefferson)

Your point (and Hicks made a similar one) about Greece and the dangers of an armed populus during an economic calamity is well taken. And look, I think we're on the brink of a devastating monetary collapse, so I don't take what you say lightly. But I am simply not convinced that we should take an event that is (thankfully) still so exceedingly rare and generalize that anyone who owns an AR-15 is out for blood. And, since one of the things we all seemed to agree on earlier was that the individual decision to own or not own a gun (assuming you act within the law) was a moral one, I have to conclude that it is not acceptable since I'm never cool with legislating people's morality.

I guess my reading comprehension has gone downhill because I'm pretty sure you did compare defending the right to free speech to the right to buy an assault weapon.  And yeah I do see those two things as vastly different. 

What I meant was I never "defended the right of mentally unstable people to buy assault weapons." But in case it wasn't clear, I am not opposing controlling and licensing firearm sales (e.g., waiting periods, background checks) as the states see fit. And I think that's different than what you said I did. That's all.

As for auto accidents, as someone who drives 30 miles roundtrip on the freeway to work everyday and has been involved in a high speed freeway accident that could have easily been fatal it's something I think about all the time and to be honest it terrifies me on a nearly daily basis.  I do my best to stay alert and hope that the car next to me doesn't do anything stupid.  I'm well aware that it's a bet that doesn't have the best odds, but I need to feed my family and with good jobs scarce and my house underwater, the opportunities to change my life circumstances are somewhat limited.  It sucks that I and many people like me have to spend so much time in our cars, but unfortunately American life has been structured as such that it is difficult to avoid.   

That right there is the difference.  No one needs an automatic weapon to survive, unlike a car, and even if they think they do I would argue that they are delusional.  Why all of these weapons are legal when they are merely one emotional meltdown away from another unnecessary massacre is something I will never understand.

The point of my car analogy was that I don't understand why anyone needs to own a machine gun, or a fast car, or a wallet chain that you can jumprope with, but I don't think that my disdain for these things should preclude others from having them (provided they don't, you know, kill me with them). Yes, the intent of each of these products is very different but does that really matter if the result is the same?

Is it naive to think of guns as just any other consumable good (cough…healthcare…cough)? Maybe. But I'd suggest it's not nearly as naive as the idea that we should make policy decisions on an event that occurs with de minimus frequency. Obviously, one shooting is too many, I just haven't seen any evidence that we need do something (or would even be able to) prevent an event so uncommon.

Offline sls.stormyrider

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 15151
  • Karma: 1042
  • Gender: Male
  • Let there be songs to fill the air
    • music list
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #168 on: July 24, 2012, 07:14:36 AM »

How about "That gov't is best which governs least"? (fun fact: not actually Jefferson).

that rang a bell from my distant past, so had to look it up.
supposedly his next statement was that I believe That govt is best is one that does not govern at all.

attractive in theory. in practice, for any group larger than 2 people...

(biting my tongue on a later comment in your post)
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

Offline runawayjimbo

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4831
  • Karma: 187
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #169 on: July 24, 2012, 07:59:29 PM »

How about "That gov't is best which governs least"? (fun fact: not actually Jefferson).

that rang a bell from my distant past, so had to look it up.
supposedly his next statement was that I believe That govt is best is one that does not govern at all.

attractive in theory. in practice, for any group larger than 2 people...

I agree that no gov't is unrealistic, but I don't believe the first part of the quote is wholly impractical. I believe gov't does serve a vital function in our society, I'd just like to see its influence greatly reduced.

(biting my tongue on a later comment in your post)

Something to do with your chosen profession, I assume?


Offline aphineday

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4792
  • Karma: 411
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll get up and fly away...
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #171 on: July 24, 2012, 10:30:29 PM »
http://wap.myfoxdfw.com/w/main/story/68234137/
But he wasn't being RESPONSIBLE! Responsible gun owners don't do this!





But if the gun wasn't present, it wouldn't have fired. Facts hurt.
If we could see these many waves that flow through clouds and sunken caves...

Offline sls.stormyrider

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 15151
  • Karma: 1042
  • Gender: Male
  • Let there be songs to fill the air
    • music list
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #172 on: July 24, 2012, 11:55:36 PM »
the gun was in his pocket - to bad it wasn't pointed at something other than his buttock

from Michael Moore - not exactly what you would have thought (or I would have thought). Some interesting points.
and no - he doesn't call for an immediate ban of all guns

Quote
It's the Guns – But We All Know, It's Not Really the Guns... a note from Michael Moore

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

ALERT: Michael Moore will appear this evening on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight to discuss the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting and where we go from here. Tune in at 9:00 PM ET/6:00 PM PT (replay 12:00 Midnight ET/9:00 PM PT and 3:00 AM ET/12:00 Midnight PT).

Friends,

Since Cain went nuts and whacked Abel, there have always been those humans who, for one reason or another, go temporarily or permanently insane and commit unspeakable acts of violence. There was the Roman Emperor Tiberius, who during the first century A.D. enjoyed throwing victims off a cliff on the Mediterranean island of Capri. Gilles de Rais, a French knight and ally of Joan of Arc during the middle ages, went cuckoo-for-Cocoa Puffs one day and ended up murdering hundreds of children. Just a few decades later Vlad the Impaler, the inspiration for Dracula, was killing people in Transylvania in numberless horrifying ways.

In modern times, nearly every nation has had a psychopath or two commit a mass murder, regardless of how strict their gun laws are – the crazed white supremacist in Norway one year ago Sunday, the schoolyard butcher in Dunblane, Scotland, the École Polytechnique killer in Montreal, the mass murderer in Erfurt, Germany … the list seems endless.

And now the Aurora shooter last Friday. There have always been insane people, and there always will be.

But here's the difference between the rest of the world and us: We have TWO Auroras that take place every single day of every single year! At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns – and that doesn't count the ones accidentally killed by guns or who commit suicide with a gun. Count them and you can triple that number to over 25,000.

That means the United States is responsible for over 80% of all the gun deaths in the 23 richest countries combined. Considering that the people of those countries, as human beings, are no better or worse than any of us, well, then, why us?

Both conservatives and liberals in America operate with firmly held beliefs as to "the why" of this problem. And the reason neither can find their way out of the box toward a real solution is because, in fact, they're both half right.

The right believes that the Founding Fathers, through some sort of divine decree, have guaranteed them the absolute right to own as many guns as they desire. And they will ceaselessly remind you that a gun cannot fire itself – that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Of course, they know they're being intellectually dishonest (if I can use that word) when they say that about the Second Amendment because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up from amongst the farmers and merchants should the Brits decide to return and wreak some havoc.

But they are half right when they say "Guns don't kill people." I would just alter that slogan slightly to speak the real truth: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."

Because we're the only ones in the first world who do this en masse. And you'll hear all stripes of Americans come up with a host of reasons so that they don't have to deal with what's really behind all this murder and mayhem.

They'll say it's the violent movies and video games that are responsible. Last time I checked, the movies and video games in Japan are more violent than ours – and yet usually fewer than 20 people a year are killed there with guns – and in 2006 the number was two!

Others will say it's the number of broken homes that lead to all this killing. I hate to break this to you, but there are almost as many single-parent homes in the U.K. as there are here – and yet, in Great Britain, there are usually fewer than 40 gun murders a year.

People like me will say this is all the result of the U.S. having a history and a culture of men with guns, "cowboys and Indians," "shoot first and ask questions later." And while it is true that the mass genocide of the Native Americans set a pretty ugly model to found a country on, I think it's safe to say we're not the only ones with a violent past or a penchant for genocide. Hello, Germany! That's right I'm talking about you and your history, from the Huns to the Nazis, just loving a good slaughter (as did the Japanese, and the British who ruled the world for hundreds of years – and they didn't achieve that through planting daisies). And yet in Germany, a nation of 80 million people, there are only around 200 gun murders a year.

So those countries (and many others) are just like us – except for the fact that more people here believe in God and go to church than any other Western nation.

My liberal compatriots will tell you if we just had less guns, there would be less gun deaths. And, mathematically, that would be true. If you have less arsenic in the water supply, it will kill less people. Less of anything bad – calories, smoking, reality TV – will kill far fewer people. And if we had strong gun laws that prohibited automatic and semi-automatic weapons and banned the sale of large magazines that can hold a gazillion bullets, well, then shooters like the man in Aurora would not be able to shoot so many people in just a few minutes.

But this, too, has a problem. There are plenty of guns in Canada (mostly hunting rifles) – and yet the annual gun murder count in Canada is around 200 deaths. In fact, because of its proximity, Canada's culture is very similar to ours – the kids play the same violent video games, watch the same movies and TV shows, and yet they don't grow up wanting to kill each other. Switzerland has the third-highest number of guns per capita on earth, but still a low murder rate.

So – why us?

I posed this question a decade ago in my film 'Bowling for Columbine,' and this week, I have had little to say because I feel I said what I had to say ten years ago – and it doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good other than to now look like it was actually a crystal ball posing as a movie.

This is what I said then, and it is what I will say again today:

1. We Americans are incredibly good killers. We believe in killing as a way of accomplishing our goals. Three-quarters of our states execute criminals, even though the states with the lower murder rates are generally the states with no death penalty.

Our killing is not just historical (the slaughter of Indians and slaves and each other in a "civil" war). It is our current way of resolving whatever it is we're afraid of. It's invasion as foreign policy. Sure there's Iraq and Afghanistan – but we've been invaders since we "conquered the wild west" and now we're hooked so bad we don't even know where to invade (bin Laden wasn't hiding in Afghanistan, he was in Pakistan) or what to invade for (Saddam had zero weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11). We send our lower classes off to do the killing, and the rest of us who don't have a loved one over there don't spend a single minute of any given day thinking about the carnage. And now we send in remote pilotless planes to kill, planes that are being controlled by faceless men in a lush, air conditioned studio in suburban Las Vegas. It is madness.

2. We are an easily frightened people and it is easy to manipulate us with fear. What are we so afraid of that we need to have 300 million guns in our homes? Who do we think is going to hurt us? Why are most of these guns in white suburban and rural homes? Maybe we should fix our race problem and our poverty problem (again, #1 in the industrialized world) and then maybe there would be fewer frustrated, frightened, angry people reaching for the gun in the drawer. Maybe we would take better care of each other (here's a good example of what I mean).

Those are my thoughts about Aurora and the violent country I am a citizen of. Like I said, I spelled it all out here if you'd like to watch it or share it for free with others. All we're lacking here, my friends, is the courage and the resolve. I'm in if you are.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com
@MMFlint
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. Don't forget to watch Piers tonight on CNN. I just taped it and it was a very good show.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 11:59:48 PM by slslbs »
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
  • Karma: 301
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #173 on: July 25, 2012, 09:48:54 AM »
http://wap.myfoxdfw.com/w/main/story/68234137/
But he wasn't being RESPONSIBLE! Responsible gun owners don't do this!





But if the gun wasn't present, it wouldn't have fired. Facts hurt.

Since I think APD is trying to argue with me in abstentia here  :wink:, I guess I'll check back in.

Putting any other objects in the same pocket as a firearm is asking for trouble, and is not something you're supposed to do. And why wasn't the trigger covered? I submit to you that it wasn't the mere presence of the gun in his pocket that caused it to fire; it was his own stupidity and, yes, irresponsibility. This guy was dumb and irresponsible and I imagine he will be charged in connection with wounding those bystanders, as he should be.

Remember when Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg? Dude had a Glock 23 (not exactly a lightweight pistol) tucked in the waistband of his sweatpants. C'mon man! As long as there are guns (even the most idealistic concede they aren't going anywhere), stupid people will do stupid things with them. I wish that weren't the case but it is.
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline emay

  • Gamehendge
  • ****
  • Posts: 10889
  • Karma: 357
  • Gender: Male
  • The Walrus was Page
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #174 on: July 25, 2012, 11:10:55 AM »
Quote
Maryland concealed carry permit rules to relax next month

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-gun-carry-permits-20120724,0,3373461.story

Good lord, this is the exact opposite of what Baltimore and MD needs.

Offline gah

  • Dans et hors du foyer, le temps tourne le temps, élastiques virages
  • Gamehendge
  • ***
  • Posts: 17004
  • Karma: 689
  • Gender: Male
  • The circus is the place for me....
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #175 on: July 25, 2012, 01:01:52 PM »
http://wap.myfoxdfw.com/w/main/story/68234137/
But he wasn't being RESPONSIBLE! Responsible gun owners don't do this!





But if the gun wasn't present, it wouldn't have fired. Facts hurt.

Since I think APD is trying to argue with me in abstentia here  :wink:, I guess I'll check back in.

Putting any other objects in the same pocket as a firearm is asking for trouble, and is not something you're supposed to do. And why wasn't the trigger covered? I submit to you that it wasn't the mere presence of the gun in his pocket that caused it to fire; it was his own stupidity and, yes, irresponsibility. This guy was dumb and irresponsible and I imagine he will be charged in connection with wounding those bystanders, as he should be.

Remember when Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg? Dude had a Glock 23 (not exactly a lightweight pistol) tucked in the waistband of his sweatpants. C'mon man! As long as there are guns (even the most idealistic concede they aren't going anywhere), stupid people will do stupid things with them. I wish that weren't the case but it is.

Neither of which we can control. If only there were something we could control, maybe their access to them? No, no, that's much to rational....ah well.
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own.

Offline phil

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 4750
  • Karma: 144
  • Gender: Male
  • Shrimpdogg Krillionaire
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #176 on: July 25, 2012, 01:13:47 PM »
http://wap.myfoxdfw.com/w/main/story/68234137/
But he wasn't being RESPONSIBLE! Responsible gun owners don't do this!





But if the gun wasn't present, it wouldn't have fired. Facts hurt.

Since I think APD is trying to argue with me in abstentia here  :wink:, I guess I'll check back in.

Putting any other objects in the same pocket as a firearm is asking for trouble, and is not something you're supposed to do. And why wasn't the trigger covered? I submit to you that it wasn't the mere presence of the gun in his pocket that caused it to fire; it was his own stupidity and, yes, irresponsibility. This guy was dumb and irresponsible and I imagine he will be charged in connection with wounding those bystanders, as he should be.

Remember when Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg? Dude had a Glock 23 (not exactly a lightweight pistol) tucked in the waistband of his sweatpants. C'mon man! As long as there are guns (even the most idealistic concede they aren't going anywhere), stupid people will do stupid things with them. I wish that weren't the case but it is.

Neither of which we can control. If only there were something we could control, maybe their access to them? No, no, that's much to rational....ah well.

maybe administer an IQ test along with the background check?
sure we tend to ramble, but that was a 3 page off topic tangent on crack and doses for breakfast?

Hey, I don't know anything. Please help.

Offline JPhishman

  • Wrote the Book
  • **
  • Posts: 3523
  • Karma: 365
  • Gender: Male
  • Yeah You Right
    • www.crescendoproductionspdx.com
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #177 on: July 25, 2012, 01:15:53 PM »
I like the comparison of owning a gun to an insurance policy. Now I wouldn't ever get a carry permit and take a gun to a movie theater or grocery store, but I have a handgun, and it stays in the safe in my bedroom. I like knowing that should a horrendous societal collapse occur, and the odds of a home invasion happening are substantially increased, I have the means to protect my family.

And if you tell me that I'd be wrong for taking out some desperate or deranged asshole that tried to forcibly enter my home and harm my family, be it for their own personal gain, or simply survival, I ask you, what would you suggest I do?

To those of you who say it is wrong to defend oneself with deadly force if necessary; should the unthinkable happen in your own home and your family is in danger, what action would you then take to protect them? Can you honestly say that juxtaposed against the life of your spouse or child that you would be concerned with the well being of the would-be attacker?

I certainly would not.

While I agree with regulating assault weapons and perhaps even concealed carry rights, it is surprising to me how many here seem to frown upon even the most basic concept of defending you and yours in a dire situation if that self-defense potentially ends the life of the attacker. All due respect for the opinions of you all, really, but when the shit goes down, your moral idealism is impractical at best and tragic at worst, IMO.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2012, 01:24:49 PM by JPhishman »
"Be sure your expectations are reasonable." - fortune cookie

Offline VDB

  • In the Band
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
  • Karma: 301
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #178 on: July 25, 2012, 01:23:28 PM »
http://wap.myfoxdfw.com/w/main/story/68234137/
But he wasn't being RESPONSIBLE! Responsible gun owners don't do this!





But if the gun wasn't present, it wouldn't have fired. Facts hurt.

Since I think APD is trying to argue with me in abstentia here  :wink:, I guess I'll check back in.

Putting any other objects in the same pocket as a firearm is asking for trouble, and is not something you're supposed to do. And why wasn't the trigger covered? I submit to you that it wasn't the mere presence of the gun in his pocket that caused it to fire; it was his own stupidity and, yes, irresponsibility. This guy was dumb and irresponsible and I imagine he will be charged in connection with wounding those bystanders, as he should be.

Remember when Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg? Dude had a Glock 23 (not exactly a lightweight pistol) tucked in the waistband of his sweatpants. C'mon man! As long as there are guns (even the most idealistic concede they aren't going anywhere), stupid people will do stupid things with them. I wish that weren't the case but it is.

Neither of which we can control. If only there were something we could control, maybe their access to them? No, no, that's much to rational....ah well.

maybe administer an IQ test along with the background check?

Just what I was going to say (of course, tongue in cheek)... No doubt something like that or a psychological screening requirement would be proposed with only the noblest of intentions, but would you have any luck putting it in place? I highly doubt it.


I like the comparison of owning a gun to an insurance policy. Now I wouldn't ever get a carry permit and take a gun to a movie theater or grocery store, but I have a handgun, and it stays in the safe in my bedroom. I like knowing that should a horrendous societal collapse occur, and the odds of a home invasion happening are substantially increased, I have the means to protect my family.

And if you tell me that I'd be wrong for taking out some desperate or deranged asshole that tried to forcibly enter my home and harm my family, be it for their own personal gain, or simply survival, I ask you, what would you suggest I do?

To those of you who say it is wrong to defend oneself with deadly force if necessary; should the unthinkable happen in your own home and your family is in danger, what action would you then take to protect them? Can you honestly say that juxtaposed against the life of your spouse or child that you would be concerned with the well being of the would-be attacker?

I certainly would not.

Careful... we don't want to re-open this can of worms, do we??
there is no explanation
it's all inside your head


de gustibus non disputandum

Offline gah

  • Dans et hors du foyer, le temps tourne le temps, élastiques virages
  • Gamehendge
  • ***
  • Posts: 17004
  • Karma: 689
  • Gender: Male
  • The circus is the place for me....
Re: Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?
« Reply #179 on: July 25, 2012, 01:24:49 PM »
http://wap.myfoxdfw.com/w/main/story/68234137/
But he wasn't being RESPONSIBLE! Responsible gun owners don't do this!





But if the gun wasn't present, it wouldn't have fired. Facts hurt.

Since I think APD is trying to argue with me in abstentia here  :wink:, I guess I'll check back in.

Putting any other objects in the same pocket as a firearm is asking for trouble, and is not something you're supposed to do. And why wasn't the trigger covered? I submit to you that it wasn't the mere presence of the gun in his pocket that caused it to fire; it was his own stupidity and, yes, irresponsibility. This guy was dumb and irresponsible and I imagine he will be charged in connection with wounding those bystanders, as he should be.

Remember when Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg? Dude had a Glock 23 (not exactly a lightweight pistol) tucked in the waistband of his sweatpants. C'mon man! As long as there are guns (even the most idealistic concede they aren't going anywhere), stupid people will do stupid things with them. I wish that weren't the case but it is.

Neither of which we can control. If only there were something we could control, maybe their access to them? No, no, that's much to rational....ah well.

maybe administer an IQ test along with the background check?

Maybe add in a psych eval too. And maybe have a loaner gun for a few weeks with rubber bullets only, you know just to see how they do with them at home, kind of like adopting a pet.
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own.