OK< paranoia on the internet

[The Dude]

I liked your post because I think you made some valid points and it's well thought out. I don't necessarily agree 100%. Sure the guy wasn't convicted of any felonies. But there is an arrest record that clearly demonstrates a history of violent activity and domestic abuse. Couple that with his online rantings. Yep, one can say there weren't convictions- no felonies- nothing to see here- move along.
IMO, conviction or not, having such a lengthy history with the law should at least garner a psych profile and a bit more investigation before any firearm purchase. It's my understanding that there are plenty of non-felons on the no fly list and even employers are using social media profiles as hiring tools. I'm also not naïve enough to think that we will stop these sorts of things completely, regardless of what is done. I respect your opinion, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For the record, I have a 12-ga shotgun and a 22 pistol at home. I'm not anti-gun.

[bob p]

> But there is an arrest record that clearly demonstrates a history of violent activity and domestic abuse.

NO! An arrest record without a conviction proves nothing more than that the police arrested someone who was never proven guilty of a crime.

An arrest record without a conviction clearly demonstrates nothing but an UNPROVEN ALLEGATION of violent activity and domestic abuse. You can't view those unproven allegations as being fact without a conviction. This is where the vast majority of well-intentioned people lose track of what it means to be fair. Too many people believe whatever they're told. It's like a sheeple, who believes anything they're told, saying something like, "He must be guilty of a crime. Why would the police arrest him otherwise?"

(Leo, that's your tack if you want to get out of jury duty. If you want to be dismissed, just make a fundamentalist comment like "Why would the police have arrested him if he wasn't guilty?" I guarantee that lack of objectivity will get you dismissed.)

It's interesting that the newspeople interviewed the guy's wife today on TV and she only had nice things to say about him. He's dead now, and there's no way that he can come back to get her for anything that she says, and she's still being nice when she describes him. If she were a long time victim of violent activity and domestic abuse, then is she still being quiet out of fear, or are those allegations just false stories that we're being told? (Does anyone actually believe the news report that the Oklahoma City Bomber left a receipt for fuel oil and fertilizer on top of his dresser?)

IMO, conviction or not, having such a lengthy history with the law should at least garner a psych profile and a bit more investigation before any firearm purchase. It's my understanding that there are plenty of non-felons on the no fly list and even employers are using social media profiles as hiring tools. I'm also not naïve enough to think that we will stop these sorts of things completely, regardless of what is done. I respect your opinion, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

For the record, I have a 12-ga shotgun and a 22 pistol at home. I'm not anti-gun.

And I bet you have a pocket knife too. I'd bet that there are a lot of American households that have pocket knives and shotguns in them ... so many that it shouldn't be newsworthy to mention them when they are found. When those types of comments are made, they are not made out of objectivity -- they're made to shape opinion. But the news people rely on them when they want to use subtle methods to shape peoples' opinions. Most people just buy into what they're being told without giving it too much thought.

I think that a distinction needs to be made between what type of information is actionable for investigation purposes vs. what type of information is actionable for discrimination. Someone's criminal record (convictions) can be used to discriminate against them, as those are proven facts. But arrrests that did not lead to convictions should not be used to discriminate against them or to suspend their civil rights -- if we travel down that road then we become guilty of judging people based upon innuendo and accusation rather than fact. With that said, even though something like an FBI background check can't discriminate against someone who was never convicted of a crime, Law Enforcement still has that arrest record (without conviction) information available them, and they do use it in their investigations. But in the spirit of fairness to those who have not been convicted of a crime, that sort of innuendo cannot be used to deny anyone's rights... unless we decide we'd rather live in a banana republic where there are no rights and there is no rule of law.

[Chuck H]

I agree that anti guns for psyco's screening is a good idea. I also agree that it's being done, sort of (IMHE it's a lot more lax than it should be). In fact America is currently enjoying some of the safest times per capita in forty years! Many gun incidents occur in heated moments between people that are family or otherwise acquainted and expected to be civil. Legal gun owners. Premeditated criminals don't have any problem getting a gun illegal or otherwise.

A real problem with profiling for legal gun ownership is where to draw the line without affecting civil rights. For example, and this is just IMHO, the guy that says "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand." (attitude and southern accent implied) is just the sort of person that probably shouldn't have a gun. He also represents , probably, better than 50% of the people that want a gun. Or, rather, insist on it. Then this guy cheats on his wife, comes home drunk and hits her in the course of an argument and she shoots him with his own gun. They haul her off in cuffs on an episode of COPS and she's yelling "He's a sunovabitch!" Just sayin'

Yes, there are definitely signals for who might use a gun for the purposes of crime. They're not limited to "It's time to destroy Trump." In fact, that's not even an unusual thing to hear in these times. It's the bumper sticker that says "This truck protected by Smith & Wesson" you need to look out for. That guy can barely WAIT for a chance to use his gun on someone. He's also the guy who's rights we're trying to preserve when we fight for gun rights since that personality type is largely represented in the demographic.

And I'm not anti gun either. In fact I believe the right to keep and bear "arms" being limited to hunting rifles and shotguns is skewed from it's original intention of allowing the public to arm itself against ANY potential threat to their rights. Including their own government. Should I qualify some mandatory, and hopefully very stringent profile test I should be allowed to buy a f'in F-16 fighter jet, fully armed if I can afford it. We don't "arm" ourselves against deer. Hunting guns were surely an assumed right with no questions when that amendment was written. It specifically addresses arms.

So consider, please, that all of the above was written by the same guy that wrote the last paragraph. I'm NOT anti gun. I'm also not blind. I agree with Bob. As long as we have a free society we're going to have to accept some associated problems.

[Enzo]

Innocent until proven guilty is a term of law, but it does not mean the same thing as "didn't do it".

Allegations are another term of law, but not the same thing as the police never saw anything. A lack of convictions is not the same thing as a clean slate.

If I SEE my neighbor steal my lawn mower, but the cops cannot prove it in court and he goes free, I do not forget that I saw him steal my lawn mower.


And just one man's opinion here: I find it interesting to discuss gun laws, how the authorities do or do not enforce them, etc. etc., but when we add blaming the "liberal media" on some part of it, frankly I think it dilutes your argument.

[Justin Thomas]

Good point about those who get off due to "technicalities," Enzo. I am simplifying that a great deal, admittedly. But yes, lack of proof does not necessarily mean lack of crime.

As far as "innocent until proven guilty," I always say guilty until proven innocent in the court of the press. And with society, the speed of data transmission, etc. being what it is today, I would think it's much more difficult to find a fair truly impartial jury of your peers...

Justin

[Enzo]

I believe in everyone getting a fair trial. But people confuse the law with life. here in Lansing we have MSU with its large football program. And every now and then a young player gets too full of himself and takes liberties with a young coed. Often it will be a pair of players who assault a young woman. There have also been cases where a player has strongarmed money from another student at a club. The coach is pretty strict about this stuff, I believe him when he says he wants to build good men, not just good athletes. SO in these cases, the offenders are usually thrown off the team.

Inevitably there will be letters to the editor in the paper about how dare he throw those guys off the team when they haven't been convicted of anything. Innocent until proven guilty. The thing is, while they have not been convicted in a court of law, and have not faced any resulting penalties, that is not the same as the coach knowing they have done the deed. Coach is aware of their actions, and he acts accordingly. The law may or may not catch up with them, but that is separate.

And it works the other way, convicted does not mean you did it. We hear stories every week of some poor schmuck who was let out of prison after it was shown someone else had done the crime. That is simple mistaken wrongful conviction. But we had a prosecutor here, who fraudulently convicted some people. Even went to far as to hide filmed proof the perp was elsewhere at the time of the crime. More important to convict someone, I guess, than to actually jail the criminal. That former prosecutor is now in jail, convicted. And I do believe he "did it".

[tedmich]

And firearms, although a factor, are not indispensable, those 2 Pakistanis in London last week killed a lot of people (and wounded way more) just with a car and a couple kitchen knives .... how do you successfully lock both kinds of weapons out of the reach of general public?

In US guns are completely invaluable, and ridiculously common. Now it turns out a greedy apartment builder was more of a threat to life in London than any jihadist...

[Enzo]

To be fair, gun control helps prevent second degree murder, but not first degree.

[bob p]

I'm not sure that I follow. Can you explain that?

[Enzo]

People often complain that gun control won't stop murders, that a murderer will find some way to kill someone if they want to. So if you prevent someone from buying a gun they can buy a knife or burn your home. But those are generally people planning a murder, a first degree murder. A second degree murder is a killing in which the killer intended to kill, but only in the moment. Not a planned act - an emotional outburst. Someone in a rage who runs out to buy a gun so he can shoot me will usually be thwarted if he has to wait three days or wait for a background check or whatever the impediment might be. Three days later he has cooled to the point of just hating me, but not willing to murder for it.

SO when I make the assertion, it isn't some hard and fast rule, but in general, the laws to prevent someone rushing to own a firearm will deter the murder. Someone carefully planning to do me in will find an alternative weapon. Nothing deeper than that.

It seems to me in gun control arguments, the NRA side often likes to say something like "if you take away their guns they will find another way". WHich I would agree with if we are discussing first degree murder. But they then use that as a basis for claiming all gun control is therefore useless. And that I do not agree with for the above reasons.

[J M Fahey]

My Lawyer always said that "people should be forbidden to carry guns in thir cars, even if they have a valid posess/carry permit", simply based on his own experience defending (sometimes attacking) perfectly "normal" people who killed or, most often, *gravely* hurt others who lightly damaged their car , cut them off on a highway exit, etc.

[Chuck H]

That's what I meant about the guy with the "This truck protected by Smith and Wesson" bumper sticker. It might just as well say "Please give me a reason to shoot you." Which is the wrong mentality for a gun owner. And yet one of the most common within that demographic.

[J M Fahey]

Spaniards have two old sayings, that like most popular ones have at least a grain of truth behind them:

1) "El que tiene un martillo, ve todo problema como un clavo" - "he who has a hammer, sees all problems as if they were nails" ... which in this case would be: "those who have guns think only way to solve problems is by shooting"

2) "El que tiene pistola, la usa" - "he who has a gun, uses it" ,meaning "he who has a gun is itching to use it ... so one way or another he eventually will"

[rjb]

Spaniards have two old sayings, that like most popular ones have at least a grain of truth behind them:

1) "El que tiene un martillo, ve todo problema como un clavo" - "he who has a hammer, sees all problems as if they were nails" ...

Wow, so that's an old Spanish saying? I thought it was Yiddish.
I always heard it as "To a boy with a hammer, the whole world is a nail."

-rb

[J M Fahey]

Jews were in Spain for at least some 700 years (arrived with and were protected by Arabs) , maybe as much as 1000, a few must have arrived even in Roman times, so probably that´s where they did catch it .

Spaniards themselves caught a lot of things from Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Germanics, which colonized at least part of the Country in that order.

The Mediterranean is very easy to navigate back and forth, being more of a huge "salt water lake" than an actual hard to handle full ocean such as the Atlantic or even worse, the Pacific, so people has been trading and travelling end to end for at least 2000 or 3000 years, an incredible melting pot.

So in the beginning I was very surprised, now not any more, about finding things which were "typical from here" being actually also quite typical "there" ... some 2000 km and 5 Countries away ... and viceversa.
Small World indeed