FREE TAPATALK APP

Captain_Swoop · 18th January 2013, 01:45 PM

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...dent-bathroom/

Quote:

Chatfield School co-directors Matt Young and Bill Kraly announced last week that they had hired retired Lapeer County Sheriff’s Dept. firearms instructor Clark Arnold as a security guard in response to the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

“It’s a tremendous asset to the safety of our students,” Young told WNEM in a report that aired on Tuesday.

But by Wednesday, the school had admitted to The Flint Journal that the retired firearms instructor had made a “made a breach in security protocol” and left his unloaded handgun unattended in the school restroom “for a few moments.”

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yDxq)

And that was en ex instructor!

kedo1981 · 18th January 2013, 02:37 PM

So the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun from taking a crap is a good with a gun taking a crap

Cain · 18th January 2013, 05:06 PM

**** happens.

Monketey Ghost · 18th January 2013, 05:37 PM

can't do much with an unloaded gun but still, man, what you thinkin'

angrysoba · 18th January 2013, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...dent-bathroom/

That cannot happen, because on another thread we were repeatedly told that trained firearms people either:

a) keep their guns locked away in a safe at all times and will only be taken out when crazed gunmen attack

or

b) that trained firearms people don't do that kind of thing and there is no statistical reason for thinking that more guns in schools will lead to more gun accidents.

Are some kind of anti-gun nut for posting this?

BStrong · 18th January 2013, 07:03 PM

I wish I could say that such things don't happen, but they do.

If you have to do business while carrying all the regularly issued and required gear on a duty belt, you have to remove gear in order to get your pants off and on.

It behooves the officer involved to pay attention to what he removed and where he put it...

Unabogie · 18th January 2013, 07:16 PM

I don't see what the big deal is. If he misplaced something that was DESIGNED as a tool of death (like a car or a swimming pool) I'd be worried.

But a gun?

A gun with no human near it?

Totally harmless and people should just relax.

johnny karate · 18th January 2013, 08:08 PM

See, this is just nonsense:

Quote:

Lapeer County Prosecutor Byron Konschuh expected that no criminal charges would be filed because no one was harmed.

“If you left a gun unattended and a toddler finds it and shoots and hurts someone, it could be some kind of reckless use of a firearm,” Konschuh explained,

He added that “[i]t’s almost like no harm no foul” because no students were injured in this case.

If this guy was drinking and driving, it certainly wouldn't be a "no harm no foul" situation as long as he didn't hurt anyone.

He placed lives in danger through his own carelessness, and he should be facing criminal charges. And every responsible gun owner should be demanding the same thing, because it's idiots like this that lead to people clamoring to take your guns away.

Skeptic Ginger · 18th January 2013, 08:18 PM

I once had a cop accidentally leave his gun behind after getting a vaccination. Humans will be human. So much for more guns making kids safer.

BStrong · 18th January 2013, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

See, this is just nonsense:

If this guy was drinking and driving, it certainly wouldn't be a "no harm no foul" situation as long as he didn't hurt anyone.

He placed lives in danger through his own carelessness, and he should be facing criminal charges. And every responsible gun owner should be demanding the same thing, because it's idiots like this that lead to people clamoring to take your guns away.

Drunk driving is considered a strict liability crime, and leaving an unloaded firearm in a public place is not.

I'd be in favor of him being bounced, but his was a offense of negligence, not wanton disregard.

johnny karate · 18th January 2013, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Drunk driving is considered a strict liability crime, and leaving an unloaded firearm in a public place is not.

Yes, I'm aware of how the two situations are viewed by the law. It was kind of the thesis of my post.

Quote:

I'd be in favor of him being bounced, but his was a offense of negligence, not wanton disregard.

You don't think drinking and driving is negligence? That in a lot of cases it's just someone exercising poor judgement with no wanton disregard?

Or is everyone who gets behind the wheel while over the legal limit intentionally placing lives in danger, while everyone who leaves a gun lying around is just committing an innocent oopsie?

I think maybe we don't split that hair, and just punish people for placing lives in danger through carelessness, regardless of how much they didn't mean to.

And again, it would be great to see the NRA and responsible gun owners get behind legislation that would do just that. That way, their claims to want to protect innocent lives would ring a little truer.

Quad4_72 · 18th January 2013, 08:55 PM

**** happens. I am almost 100% positive here on this forum no one has ever advocated that either Concealed Carry permit holders or ex law enforcement are impervious to mistakes.

Meadmaker · 18th January 2013, 09:17 PM

So....why was his gun unloaded?

TragicMonkey · 18th January 2013, 09:19 PM

Clearly the solution is for them to hire more armed guards, and forbid them to use the bathroom at the same time. What if a murderer comes in while your only guard is on the toilet and unavailable? It's dereliction of duty for the guard to be using the bathroom at all, nevermind leaving his gun there or not. Is he being paid to poop while children are in danger? Doesn't his using the bathroom make him just as bad as the murderers?

Fizil · 18th January 2013, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So....why was his gun unloaded?

Because an unloaded gun is safer than a loaded gun? Why would he be carrying it loaded. The only time having it unloaded would be a liability is if a guy came into the school guns blazing and shot at him first. Even then, it wouldn't help much unless he was a fictional quick shot from the old west.

johnny karate · 18th January 2013, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

**** happens. I am almost 100% positive here on this forum no one has ever advocated that either Concealed Carry permit holders or ex law enforcement are impervious to mistakes.

No, just that they should be responsible for them. Especially when they put lives at risk.

But you're probably right. Operating or possessing dangerous implements shouldn't require any heightened level of responsibility.

Just today, I was driving home and accidentally blew right through a red light. But I didn't hurt anyone, so no big whoop. Like you said, **** happens. I can't possibly be expected to be impervious to mistakes.

Quad4_72 · 18th January 2013, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

No, just that they should be responsible for them. Especially when they put lives at risk.

But you're probably right. Operating or possessing dangerous implements shouldn't require any heightened level of responsibility.

Just today, I was driving home and accidentally blew right through a red light. But I didn't hurt anyone, so no big whoop. Like you said, **** happens. I can't possibly be expected to be impervious to mistakes.

Ah I see you have decided to go the strawman route. A dishonest and immature route, but a route nonetheless. Hope you enjoy.

johnny karate · 18th January 2013, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Ah I see you have decided to go the strawman route. A dishonest and immature route, but a route nonetheless. Hope you enjoy.

How was it a straw man? Is there some other way to interpret the term "**** happens" other than casual disregard?

You have expressed quite clearly that you're not particularly bothered by someone carelessly leaving a gun lying around where children would have access to it.

Instead of expressing self-righteous indignation, I think it might be more interesting for you to explain why a supposedly responsible gun owner appears to not take the responsible handling of guns very seriously.

Checkmite · 18th January 2013, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Fizil

Because an unloaded gun is safer than a loaded gun? Why would he be carrying it loaded.

"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with an unloaded gun" loses a little bit of that "ring", yes?

Quad4_72 · 18th January 2013, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

How was it a straw man? Is there some other way to interpret the term "**** happens" other than casual disregard?

**** happens does not mean "Don't care about what happened".

Quote:

You have expressed quite clearly that you're not particularly bothered by someone carelessly leaving a gun lying around where children would have access to it.

I expressed this quite clearly? No, I didn't. You interpreted what I said in order to fit in with your personal biased opinion.

Quote:

Instead of expressing self-righteous indignation, I think it might be more interesting for you to explain why a supposedly responsible gun owner appears to not take the responsible handling of guns very seriously.

He made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. I am not saying that makes it ok, but in order to determine whether or not he is a responsible gun owner one would need to look at his history. According to the article, he retired with 32 years of service. That is 32 years of carrying a firearm. If this is his only mistake, I would say he has a pretty good track record. Personally, I think it should never happen, but one mistake over the course of that time period is no reason to crucify the man, and it is definitely not a case for not having armed guards in a school.

Checkmite · 18th January 2013, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

**** happens does not mean "Don't care about what happened".

I expressed this quite clearly? No, I didn't. You interpreted what I said in order to fit in with your personal biased opinion.

I'm pretty sure you must be the only person in the entire world who doesn't see "**** happens" as an expression of a cavalier attitude.

Fizil · 18th January 2013, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

He made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. I am not saying that makes it ok, but in order to determine whether or not he is a responsible gun owner one would need to look at his history. According to the article, he retired with 32 years of service. That is 32 years of carrying a firearm. If this is his only mistake, I would say he has a pretty good track record. Personally, I think it should never happen, but one mistake over the course of that time period is no reason to crucify the man, and it is definitely not a case for not having armed guards in a school.

The point is that is you accidentally run a stop light, and get pulled over for a ticket, you deserve it, even though it was an accident.

So do you believe that accidentally leaving a gun in a school bathroom should have SOME consequence, in the same way that accidentally violating a traffic law is.

If you don't think there should be some legal consequence, even if just a civil infraction, I don't see how the hell your position is in any way rational, unless you think people should be able to get out of a ticket for running a stop sign by telling the cop "Opps, sorry I didn't see the sign".

johnny karate · 18th January 2013, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

**** happens does not mean "Don't care about what happened".

What does it mean then?

Quote:

I expressed this quite clearly? No, I didn't. You interpreted what I said in order to fit in with your personal biased opinion.

No, I interpreted what you said based on reading your words and knowing what those words mean in the context in which you used them. You're the one who apparently wants to redefine a fairly common phrase for expressing indifference.

Quote:

He made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. I am not saying that makes it ok, but in order to determine whether or not he is a responsible gun owner one would need to look at his history. According to the article, he retired with 32 years of service. That is 32 years of carrying a firearm. If this is his only mistake, I would say he has a pretty good track record. Personally, I think it should never happen, but one mistake over the course of that time period is no reason to crucify the man, and it is definitely not a case for not having armed guards in a school.

I don't recall saying he should be crucified or that there shouldn't be armed guards in a school. I said he should face criminal charges.

Why do you think someone who engages in life-risking negligent behavior shouldn't be subject to criminal charges?

Quad4_72 · 19th January 2013, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I'm pretty sure you must be the only person in the entire world who doesn't see "**** happens" as an expression of a cavalier attitude.

And I am pretty sure you are wrong.

Quad4_72 · 19th January 2013, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Fizil

The point is that is you accidentally run a stop light, and get pulled over for a ticket, you deserve it, even though it was an accident.

So do you believe that accidentally leaving a gun in a school bathroom should have SOME consequence, in the same way that accidentally violating a traffic law is.

If you don't think there should be some legal consequence, even if just a civil infraction, I don't see how the hell your position is in any way rational, unless you think people should be able to get out of a ticket for running a stop sign by telling the cop "Opps, sorry I didn't see the sign".

I actually do believe the guy should at the very least be mandated to receive some remedial training on weapons safety, and perhaps a reprimand of some sort. Here in the military, leaving your weapon in the latrine is a good way to receive an article 15.

Quad4_72 · 19th January 2013, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

What does it mean then?

It means that sometimes, unforeseeable and unfortunate events do occur. In this case, a man who has been on the force for 32 years, and likely never left his gun in the latrine before, ended up leaving it in there. It's unfortunate and to everyone who knew him likely unforeseeable.

Quote:

No, I interpreted what you said based on reading your words and knowing what those words mean in the context in which you used them. You're the one who apparently wants to redefine a fairly common phrase for expressing indifference.

Uh huh. No.

Quote:

I don't recall saying he should be crucified or that there shouldn't be armed guards in a school. I said he should face criminal charges.

Why do you think someone who engages in life-risking negligent behavior shouldn't be subject to criminal charges?

What kind of criminal charges are you suggesting?

KoihimeNakamura · 19th January 2013, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I actually do believe the guy should at the very least be mandated to receive some remedial training on weapons safety, and perhaps a reprimand of some sort. Here in the military, leaving your weapon in the latrine is a good way to receive an article 15.

Article 15?

Magyar · 19th January 2013, 07:31 AM

Yup and this guy an ex sherif and the guy who trains others how to behave with guns is the poster child for responsible gun ownership. But everything is a ok, we don't need no sticking gun. Control. Just more guns for morons

Puppycow · 19th January 2013, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

See, this is just nonsense:

If this guy was drinking and driving, it certainly wouldn't be a "no harm no foul" situation as long as he didn't hurt anyone.

He placed lives in danger through his own carelessness, and he should be facing criminal charges. And every responsible gun owner should be demanding the same thing, because it's idiots like this that lead to people clamoring to take your guns away.

Do you think that the Mythbusters people should be facing criminal charges?

‘MythBusters’ cannon ball accident caused by ‘unforeseen bounce’

Puppycow · 19th January 2013, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Article 15?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justi.../article15.htm

johnny karate · 19th January 2013, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

It means that sometimes, unforeseeable and unfortunate events do occur. In this case, a man who has been on the force for 32 years, and likely never left his gun in the latrine before, ended up leaving it in there. It's unfortunate and to everyone who knew him likely unforeseeable.

Yeah, okay.

That's why "**** happens" is a such a common and socially acceptable expression of sympathy.

I lost my job today, and I don't know how I'm going to take care of my family.

**** happens.

My brother died in a car accident last week.

**** happens.

Quote:

What kind of criminal charges are you suggesting?

It's considered good form to answer a question put to you before asking your own.

Explain why you think someone who irresponsibly mishandles a firearm should be free from any legal consequences, and then we can discuss what those legal consequences should be.

johnny karate · 19th January 2013, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Do you think that the Mythbusters people should be facing criminal charges?

‘MythBusters’ cannon ball accident caused by ‘unforeseen bounce’

Yes.

Call me crazy, but accidentally firing a cannon into a residential neighborhood should have legal consequences, even if the perpetrators are charming television hosts.

I just think it's nonsensical that the guy who walks away consequence-free after leaving his gun unattended where children had access to it would face stiffer legal repercussions (which is to say any legal repercussions) once he left and drove 1 mph over the posted speed limit in the designated school zone.

BStrong · 19th January 2013, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So....why was his gun unloaded?

My bet would be that he safed (unloaded) it when he removed it from the holster.

If anyone would like to back off of the frothing of the mouth, I posted a list of suggestions back on 18 Dec. for comprehensive gun control laws.

One of my proposals was draconian punshiment for criminal misuse or negligence involving firearms.

I would include a situation such as this as a negligent incident, but what would the posters suggest as punishment in a case like this past termination of employement?

johnny karate · 19th January 2013, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

If anyone would like to back off of the frothing of the mouth, I posted a list of suggestions back on 18 Dec. for comprehensive gun control laws.

I've read this entire thread, and I didn't see any "frothing of the mouth". Can you quote an example please?

Quote:

One of my proposals was draconian punshiment for criminal misuse or negligence involving firearms.

I would include a situation such as this as a negligent incident, but what would the posters suggest as punishment in a case like this past termination of employement?

Fines would be a good place to start.

Suspension of the firearm permit would be another. If you incur enough violations, you can have your driver's license suspended, and even revoked. I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for a firearm permit.

A system in which violators are mandated to successfully complete a firearm safety course before having the suspension on their permits lifted sounds pretty good, too.

You know, something that says we as a society recognize gun ownership has the burden of responsibility, and the irresponsible handling of guns should be met with something more than merely saying "**** happens".

Quad4_72 · 19th January 2013, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Yeah, okay.

That's why "**** happens" is a such a common and socially acceptable expression of sympathy.

I lost my job today, and I don't know how I'm going to take care of my family.

**** happens.

My brother died in a car accident last week.

**** happens.

It's considered good form to answer a question put to you before asking your own.

Explain why you think someone who irresponsibly mishandles a firearm should be free from any legal consequences, and then we can discuss what those legal consequences should be.

My definition is correct. And why would I explain such a thing when I never suggested it? Please direct me to where I suggested there should be no legal consequences. Or are you just making things up again?

marplots · 19th January 2013, 09:11 AM

Aw, com'on. What's the chances a homicidal maniac is going to show up just in time to find the gun? Not gonna happen. Homicidal maniacs bring their own guns, and they hardly ever leave them laying around.

BStrong · 19th January 2013, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I've read this entire thread, and I didn't see any "frothing of the mouth". Can you quote an example please?

Fines would be a good place to start.

Suspension of the firearm permit would be another. If you incur enough violations, you can have your driver's license suspended, and even revoked. I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for a firearm permit.

A system in which violators are mandated to successfully complete a firearm safety course before having the suspension on their permits lifted sounds pretty good, too.

You know, something that says we as a society recognize gun ownership has the burden of responsibility, and the irresponsible handling of guns should be met with something more than merely saying "**** happens".

I suggested that the officer should be terminated from his employment.

That's not enough?

geni · 19th January 2013, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

He made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. I am not saying that makes it ok, but in order to determine whether or not he is a responsible gun owner one would need to look at his history. According to the article, he retired with 32 years of service. That is 32 years of carrying a firearm. If this is his only mistake, I would say he has a pretty good track record. Personally, I think it should never happen, but one mistake over the course of that time period is no reason to crucify the man, and it is definitely not a case for not having armed guards in a school.

You might want to avoid making such arguments in front of health and safety officers. From their perspective 32 years of getting away with it/not being caught isn't much of a recomendation.

geni · 19th January 2013, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I just think it's nonsensical that the guy who walks away consequence-free after leaving his gun unattended where children had access to it would face stiffer legal repercussions (which is to say any legal repercussions) once he left and drove 1 mph over the posted speed limit in the designated school zone.

The counter argument is that by taking that approach you prevent incerdents being reported. For example people mislay radactive sources with worrying frequency. If a criminal prosecution was carried out every time that happened they would likely spend a longer time being lost.

Quad4_72 · 19th January 2013, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by geni

You might want to avoid making such arguments in front of health and safety officers. From their perspective 32 years of getting away with it/not being caught isn't much of a recomendation.

And of course one would need to provide evidence that he has been getting away with/not getting caught leaving his weapon around for 32 years to make such a claim.

18th January 2013, 01:45 PM	#1
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,979	School Guard leaves gun in Student Bathroom http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...dent-bathroom/ Quote: Chatfield School co-directors Matt Young and Bill Kraly announced last week that they had hired retired Lapeer County Sheriff’s Dept. firearms instructor Clark Arnold as a security guard in response to the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. “It’s a tremendous asset to the safety of our students,” Young told WNEM in a report that aired on Tuesday. But by Wednesday, the school had admitted to The Flint Journal that the retired firearms instructor had made a “made a breach in security protocol” and left his unloaded handgun unattended in the school restroom “for a few moments.” Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yDxq) And that was en ex instructor!
	Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 18th January 2013 at 01:47 PM.

18th January 2013, 02:37 PM	#2
kedo1981 Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: ohio Posts: 2,103	So the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun from taking a crap is a good with a gun taking a crap
	__________________ "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21) I readily admit I don’t know enough to say for sure that there is no God. But I do know enough so say that anyone who claims to know the mind and will of a being such as God is a liar. I have no problem with Jesus, but his fan club sucks!

18th January 2013, 05:06 PM	#3
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 7,004	**** happens.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

18th January 2013, 05:37 PM	#4
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,812	can't do much with an unloaded gun but still, man, what you thinkin'
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

18th January 2013, 08:08 PM	#8
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	See, this is just nonsense: Quote: Lapeer County Prosecutor Byron Konschuh expected that no criminal charges would be filed because no one was harmed. “If you left a gun unattended and a toddler finds it and shoots and hurts someone, it could be some kind of reckless use of a firearm,” Konschuh explained, He added that “[i]t’s almost like no harm no foul” because no students were injured in this case. If this guy was drinking and driving, it certainly wouldn't be a "no harm no foul" situation as long as he didn't hurt anyone. He placed lives in danger through his own carelessness, and he should be facing criminal charges. And every responsible gun owner should be demanding the same thing, because it's idiots like this that lead to people clamoring to take your guns away.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

18th January 2013, 06:52 PM	#5
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,882	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/1...dent-bathroom/ That cannot happen, because on another thread we were repeatedly told that trained firearms people either: a) keep their guns locked away in a safe at all times and will only be taken out when crazed gunmen attack or b) that trained firearms people don't do that kind of thing and there is no statistical reason for thinking that more guns in schools will lead to more gun accidents. Are some kind of anti-gun nut for posting this?

18th January 2013, 07:03 PM	#6
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	I wish I could say that such things don't happen, but they do. If you have to do business while carrying all the regularly issued and required gear on a duty belt, you have to remove gear in order to get your pants off and on. It behooves the officer involved to pay attention to what he removed and where he put it...

18th January 2013, 07:16 PM	#7
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,919	I don't see what the big deal is. If he misplaced something that was DESIGNED as a tool of death (like a car or a swimming pool) I'd be worried. But a gun? A gun with no human near it? Totally harmless and people should just relax.

18th January 2013, 08:18 PM	#9
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	I once had a cop accidentally leave his gun behind after getting a vaccination. Humans will be human. So much for more guns making kids safer.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

18th January 2013, 08:22 PM	#10
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	Originally Posted by johnny karate See, this is just nonsense: If this guy was drinking and driving, it certainly wouldn't be a "no harm no foul" situation as long as he didn't hurt anyone. He placed lives in danger through his own carelessness, and he should be facing criminal charges. And every responsible gun owner should be demanding the same thing, because it's idiots like this that lead to people clamoring to take your guns away. Drunk driving is considered a strict liability crime, and leaving an unloaded firearm in a public place is not. I'd be in favor of him being bounced, but his was a offense of negligence, not wanton disregard.

18th January 2013, 08:49 PM	#11
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by BStrong Drunk driving is considered a strict liability crime, and leaving an unloaded firearm in a public place is not. Yes, I'm aware of how the two situations are viewed by the law. It was kind of the thesis of my post. Quote: I'd be in favor of him being bounced, but his was a offense of negligence, not wanton disregard. You don't think drinking and driving is negligence? That in a lot of cases it's just someone exercising poor judgement with no wanton disregard? Or is everyone who gets behind the wheel while over the legal limit intentionally placing lives in danger, while everyone who leaves a gun lying around is just committing an innocent oopsie? I think maybe we don't split that hair, and just punish people for placing lives in danger through carelessness, regardless of how much they didn't mean to. And again, it would be great to see the NRA and responsible gun owners get behind legislation that would do just that. That way, their claims to want to protect innocent lives would ring a little truer.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

18th January 2013, 08:55 PM	#12
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	**** happens. I am almost 100% positive here on this forum no one has ever advocated that either Concealed Carry permit holders or ex law enforcement are impervious to mistakes.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

18th January 2013, 09:17 PM	#13
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,466	So....why was his gun unloaded?
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

18th January 2013, 09:19 PM	#14
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,281	Clearly the solution is for them to hire more armed guards, and forbid them to use the bathroom at the same time. What if a murderer comes in while your only guard is on the toilet and unavailable? It's dereliction of duty for the guard to be using the bathroom at all, nevermind leaving his gun there or not. Is he being paid to poop while children are in danger? Doesn't his using the bathroom make him just as bad as the murderers?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

18th January 2013, 09:22 PM	#15
Fizil Scholar Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 88	Originally Posted by Meadmaker So....why was his gun unloaded? Because an unloaded gun is safer than a loaded gun? Why would he be carrying it loaded. The only time having it unloaded would be a liability is if a guy came into the school guns blazing and shot at him first. Even then, it wouldn't help much unless he was a fictional quick shot from the old west.
Fizil Scholar Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 88

18th January 2013, 09:30 PM	#16
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 ** happens. I am almost 100% positive here on this forum no one has ever advocated that either Concealed Carry permit holders or ex law enforcement are impervious to mistakes. No, just that they should be responsible for them. Especially when they put lives at risk. But you're probably right. Operating or possessing dangerous implements shouldn't require any heightened level of responsibility. Just today, I was driving home and accidentally blew right through a red light. But I didn't hurt anyone, so no big whoop. Like you said, ** happens. I can't possibly be expected to be impervious to mistakes.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

18th January 2013, 09:34 PM	#17
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by johnny karate No, just that they should be responsible for them. Especially when they put lives at risk. But you're probably right. Operating or possessing dangerous implements shouldn't require any heightened level of responsibility. Just today, I was driving home and accidentally blew right through a red light. But I didn't hurt anyone, so no big whoop. Like you said, **** happens. I can't possibly be expected to be impervious to mistakes. Ah I see you have decided to go the strawman route. A dishonest and immature route, but a route nonetheless. Hope you enjoy.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

18th January 2013, 09:43 PM	#18
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 Ah I see you have decided to go the strawman route. A dishonest and immature route, but a route nonetheless. Hope you enjoy. How was it a straw man? Is there some other way to interpret the term "**** happens" other than casual disregard? You have expressed quite clearly that you're not particularly bothered by someone carelessly leaving a gun lying around where children would have access to it. Instead of expressing self-righteous indignation, I think it might be more interesting for you to explain why a supposedly responsible gun owner appears to not take the responsible handling of guns very seriously.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

18th January 2013, 09:56 PM	#19
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,976	School Guard leaves gun in Student Bathroom Originally Posted by Fizil Because an unloaded gun is safer than a loaded gun? Why would he be carrying it loaded. "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with an unloaded gun" loses a little bit of that "ring", yes?
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002 Last edited by Checkmite; 18th January 2013 at 09:58 PM.

18th January 2013, 09:57 PM	#20
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by johnny karate How was it a straw man? Is there some other way to interpret the term "**** happens" other than casual disregard? **** happens does not mean "Don't care about what happened". Quote: You have expressed quite clearly that you're not particularly bothered by someone carelessly leaving a gun lying around where children would have access to it. I expressed this quite clearly? No, I didn't. You interpreted what I said in order to fit in with your personal biased opinion. Quote: Instead of expressing self-righteous indignation, I think it might be more interesting for you to explain why a supposedly responsible gun owner appears to not take the responsible handling of guns very seriously. He made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. I am not saying that makes it ok, but in order to determine whether or not he is a responsible gun owner one would need to look at his history. According to the article, he retired with 32 years of service. That is 32 years of carrying a firearm. If this is his only mistake, I would say he has a pretty good track record. Personally, I think it should never happen, but one mistake over the course of that time period is no reason to crucify the man, and it is definitely not a case for not having armed guards in a school.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

18th January 2013, 10:00 PM	#21
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,976	School Guard leaves gun in Student Bathroom Originally Posted by Quad4_72 ** happens does not mean "Don't care about what happened". I expressed this quite clearly? No, I didn't. You interpreted what I said in order to fit in with your personal biased opinion. I'm pretty sure you must be the only person in the entire world who doesn't see "** happens" as an expression of a cavalier attitude.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

18th January 2013, 10:04 PM	#22
Fizil Scholar Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 88	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 He made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. I am not saying that makes it ok, but in order to determine whether or not he is a responsible gun owner one would need to look at his history. According to the article, he retired with 32 years of service. That is 32 years of carrying a firearm. If this is his only mistake, I would say he has a pretty good track record. Personally, I think it should never happen, but one mistake over the course of that time period is no reason to crucify the man, and it is definitely not a case for not having armed guards in a school. The point is that is you accidentally run a stop light, and get pulled over for a ticket, you deserve it, even though it was an accident. So do you believe that accidentally leaving a gun in a school bathroom should have SOME consequence, in the same way that accidentally violating a traffic law is. If you don't think there should be some legal consequence, even if just a civil infraction, I don't see how the hell your position is in any way rational, unless you think people should be able to get out of a ticket for running a stop sign by telling the cop "Opps, sorry I didn't see the sign".
Fizil Scholar Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 88

18th January 2013, 10:24 PM	#23
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 **** happens does not mean "Don't care about what happened". What does it mean then? Quote: I expressed this quite clearly? No, I didn't. You interpreted what I said in order to fit in with your personal biased opinion. No, I interpreted what you said based on reading your words and knowing what those words mean in the context in which you used them. You're the one who apparently wants to redefine a fairly common phrase for expressing indifference. Quote: He made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. I am not saying that makes it ok, but in order to determine whether or not he is a responsible gun owner one would need to look at his history. According to the article, he retired with 32 years of service. That is 32 years of carrying a firearm. If this is his only mistake, I would say he has a pretty good track record. Personally, I think it should never happen, but one mistake over the course of that time period is no reason to crucify the man, and it is definitely not a case for not having armed guards in a school. I don't recall saying he should be crucified or that there shouldn't be armed guards in a school. I said he should face criminal charges. Why do you think someone who engages in life-risking negligent behavior shouldn't be subject to criminal charges?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

19th January 2013, 06:30 AM	#24
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by Checkmite I'm pretty sure you must be the only person in the entire world who doesn't see "**** happens" as an expression of a cavalier attitude. And I am pretty sure you are wrong.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

19th January 2013, 06:32 AM	#25
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by Fizil The point is that is you accidentally run a stop light, and get pulled over for a ticket, you deserve it, even though it was an accident. So do you believe that accidentally leaving a gun in a school bathroom should have SOME consequence, in the same way that accidentally violating a traffic law is. If you don't think there should be some legal consequence, even if just a civil infraction, I don't see how the hell your position is in any way rational, unless you think people should be able to get out of a ticket for running a stop sign by telling the cop "Opps, sorry I didn't see the sign". I actually do believe the guy should at the very least be mandated to receive some remedial training on weapons safety, and perhaps a reprimand of some sort. Here in the military, leaving your weapon in the latrine is a good way to receive an article 15.
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

19th January 2013, 06:43 AM	#26
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by johnny karate What does it mean then? It means that sometimes, unforeseeable and unfortunate events do occur. In this case, a man who has been on the force for 32 years, and likely never left his gun in the latrine before, ended up leaving it in there. It's unfortunate and to everyone who knew him likely unforeseeable. Quote: No, I interpreted what you said based on reading your words and knowing what those words mean in the context in which you used them. You're the one who apparently wants to redefine a fairly common phrase for expressing indifference. Uh huh. No. Quote: I don't recall saying he should be crucified or that there shouldn't be armed guards in a school. I said he should face criminal charges. Why do you think someone who engages in life-risking negligent behavior shouldn't be subject to criminal charges? What kind of criminal charges are you suggesting?
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

19th January 2013, 07:31 AM	#27
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,921	Re: School Guard leaves gun in Student Bathroom Originally Posted by Quad4_72 I actually do believe the guy should at the very least be mandated to receive some remedial training on weapons safety, and perhaps a reprimand of some sort. Here in the military, leaving your weapon in the latrine is a good way to receive an article 15. Article 15?
	__________________ Don't mind me.

19th January 2013, 07:31 AM	#28
Magyar Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: the edge of reason Posts: 1,564	Yup and this guy an ex sherif and the guy who trains others how to behave with guns is the poster child for responsible gun ownership. But everything is a ok, we don't need no sticking gun. Control. Just more guns for morons
	__________________ "There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." James Joyce Due to recent cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

19th January 2013, 07:40 AM	#29
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,015	Originally Posted by johnny karate See, this is just nonsense: If this guy was drinking and driving, it certainly wouldn't be a "no harm no foul" situation as long as he didn't hurt anyone. He placed lives in danger through his own carelessness, and he should be facing criminal charges. And every responsible gun owner should be demanding the same thing, because it's idiots like this that lead to people clamoring to take your guns away. Do you think that the Mythbusters people should be facing criminal charges? ‘MythBusters’ cannon ball accident caused by ‘unforeseen bounce’
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th January 2013, 07:42 AM	#30
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,015	Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura Article 15? http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justi.../article15.htm
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

19th January 2013, 07:58 AM	#31
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by Quad4_72 It means that sometimes, unforeseeable and unfortunate events do occur. In this case, a man who has been on the force for 32 years, and likely never left his gun in the latrine before, ended up leaving it in there. It's unfortunate and to everyone who knew him likely unforeseeable. Yeah, okay. That's why "**** happens" is a such a common and socially acceptable expression of sympathy. I lost my job today, and I don't know how I'm going to take care of my family. **** happens. My brother died in a car accident last week. **** happens. Quote: What kind of criminal charges are you suggesting? It's considered good form to answer a question put to you before asking your own. Explain why you think someone who irresponsibly mishandles a firearm should be free from any legal consequences, and then we can discuss what those legal consequences should be.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

19th January 2013, 08:01 AM	#32
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by Puppycow Do you think that the Mythbusters people should be facing criminal charges? ‘MythBusters’ cannon ball accident caused by ‘unforeseen bounce’ Yes. Call me crazy, but accidentally firing a cannon into a residential neighborhood should have legal consequences, even if the perpetrators are charming television hosts. I just think it's nonsensical that the guy who walks away consequence-free after leaving his gun unattended where children had access to it would face stiffer legal repercussions (which is to say any legal repercussions) once he left and drove 1 mph over the posted speed limit in the designated school zone.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by johnny karate; 19th January 2013 at 08:07 AM.

19th January 2013, 08:17 AM	#33
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	Originally Posted by Meadmaker So....why was his gun unloaded? My bet would be that he safed (unloaded) it when he removed it from the holster. If anyone would like to back off of the frothing of the mouth, I posted a list of suggestions back on 18 Dec. for comprehensive gun control laws. One of my proposals was draconian punshiment for criminal misuse or negligence involving firearms. I would include a situation such as this as a negligent incident, but what would the posters suggest as punishment in a case like this past termination of employement?

19th January 2013, 08:45 AM	#34
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,889	Originally Posted by BStrong If anyone would like to back off of the frothing of the mouth, I posted a list of suggestions back on 18 Dec. for comprehensive gun control laws. I've read this entire thread, and I didn't see any "frothing of the mouth". Can you quote an example please? Quote: One of my proposals was draconian punshiment for criminal misuse or negligence involving firearms. I would include a situation such as this as a negligent incident, but what would the posters suggest as punishment in a case like this past termination of employement? Fines would be a good place to start. Suspension of the firearm permit would be another. If you incur enough violations, you can have your driver's license suspended, and even revoked. I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for a firearm permit. A system in which violators are mandated to successfully complete a firearm safety course before having the suspension on their permits lifted sounds pretty good, too. You know, something that says we as a society recognize gun ownership has the burden of responsibility, and the irresponsible handling of guns should be met with something more than merely saying "**** happens".
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

19th January 2013, 09:06 AM	#35
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by johnny karate Yeah, okay. That's why "**** happens" is a such a common and socially acceptable expression of sympathy. I lost my job today, and I don't know how I'm going to take care of my family. **** happens. My brother died in a car accident last week. **** happens. It's considered good form to answer a question put to you before asking your own. Explain why you think someone who irresponsibly mishandles a firearm should be free from any legal consequences, and then we can discuss what those legal consequences should be. My definition is correct. And why would I explain such a thing when I never suggested it? Please direct me to where I suggested there should be no legal consequences. Or are you just making things up again?
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken