School Guard leaves gun in Student Bathroom

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

My definition is correct.

Bare assertion is a very compelling form of argumentation. Well played.

Quote:

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?

Oh I see, so you do think there should be legal consequences. The lack of concern you expressed over this incident is quite plain in your first post in this thread. I didn't realize that was supposed to be interpreted as "This is no big deal" and "There should be legal consequences" as those sentiments are at odds with each other.

So now that you've pivoted away from your initial statement, do you agree that there should be criminal charges filed in this case, and that, if necessary, stricter legal measures need to be enacted to address such blatant disregard for proper firearm safety?

[Soapy Sam]

Why was he using the student toilet?

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by BStrong

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?

Draconian punishment seems to be the right-wing solution to every social problem, which is one of the reasons we have over 2 million people locked up in this country.

I would submit that you can't raise the national IQ by outlawing stupidity. It's better to design policies that take human imperfection into account by preventing mistakes rather than punishing them after the fact.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by BStrong

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

That's not enough?

I'm not sure how that's effective in a broader context. This guy happened to mishandle a gun while on the job. What if he had done the same thing while dining at a restaurant and carrying a firearm wasn't part of his job? Then what?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

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

That's not enough?

He should lose his right to carry or use weapons, at least for a while. He has now demonstrated that he doesn't have the mental capability to safely do so.

Why is losing the ability to own or carry guns always off the table, except for felons?

[marplots]

What might work better is having some of those, "break glass in case of emergency" style boxes all over. Put guns in them. That way, when the shootin' starts, anyone can be a hero. And it's not like some nut-job could get to them all.

It's simple solutions like this that will continually evade the notice of decision makers.

To quote John Hodgman, "You're welcome."

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

Draconian punishment seems to be the right-wing solution to every social problem, which is one of the reasons we have over 2 million people locked up in this country.

I would submit that you can't raise the national IQ by outlawing stupidity. It's better to design policies that take human imperfection into account by preventing mistakes rather than punishing them after the fact.

I don't think it's a question of outlawing stupidity as much as simply finding the stupid people and taking steps to ensure their stupidity doesn't harm the rest of us.

Someone too stupid to drive a car safely eventually doesn't get to drive a car anymore. Someone too stupid to handle a gun safely should eventually have that gun taken away.

[BStrong]

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.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Having said that, there are very few individuals that carry firearms on a daily basis for decades that don't have either a negligent discharge at some point, or discover a live round in the chamber of a firearm they had believed to have been cleared.

I'm no exception to that.

I have a Boone and Crockett trophy plate glass window and aluminum ladder on my wall from mine.

If training is followed, which mine was up until "bang!" no one will be injured or worse, but I know of several incidents involving officers where individuals have been injured or killed.


In this incident, no harm resulted other than to the dignity of the officer invovled, but imo he should be gone.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Bare assertion is a very compelling form of argumentation. Well played.



Oh I see, so you do think there should be legal consequences. The lack of concern you expressed over this incident is quite plain in your first post in this thread. I didn't realize that was supposed to be interpreted as "This is no big deal" and "There should be legal consequences" as those sentiments are at odds with each other.

So now that you've pivoted away from your initial statement, do you agree that there should be criminal charges filed in this case, and that, if necessary, stricter legal measures need to be enacted to address such blatant disregard for proper firearm safety?

I think something along the lines of a fine and required remedial training should be in order. Termination from employment until said training has been completed would also be an option. You should really wait until a poster makes his response before making assumptions.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

He should lose his right to carry or use weapons, at least for a while. He has now demonstrated that he doesn't have the mental capability to safely do so.

Why is losing the ability to own or carry guns always off the table, except for felons?

Under what statute in that jurisdiction?

Because in order for someone to lose their civil rights, which owning a firearm in common use is at this time, one must commit a serious criminal act - a negligent act not resulting in physical harm doesn't rise to that level.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Under what statute in that jurisdiction?

Because in order for someone to lose their civil rights, which owning a firearm in common use is at this time, one must commit a serious criminal act - a negligent act not resulting in physical harm doesn't rise to that level.

Under no statute. I thought we were discussing new laws to reduce gun violence? I think this should change and we should enact a licensing scheme for owning guns. And then penalties for not following the rules, such as losing your weapon under a "suspended license".

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I think something along the lines of a fine and required remedial training should be in order. Termination from employment until said training has been completed would also be an option.

I find that agreeable.

Quote:

You should really wait until a poster makes his response before making assumptions.

When you express a cavalier attitude, people are going to assume you are being cavalier.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I don't think it's a question of outlawing stupidity as much as simply finding the stupid people and taking steps to ensure their stupidity doesn't harm the rest of us.

Someone too stupid to drive a car safely eventually doesn't get to drive a car anymore. Someone too stupid to handle a gun safely should eventually have that gun taken away.

I live on an island where the only way off is by plane or boat. Most people who live here have cars on one of the islands with ferry service, or on the mainland.

Everyone out here knows that one sure way to have a bad day is to take a plane or boat off the island and forget your car keys. And yet lots of people here, including me, have done it.

Some weeks back I posted a thread about an off-duty cop who stepped out of his car for five minutes, and it was long enough so his two-year-old son grabbed a pistol and fatally shot his five-year-old daughter.

This guy has a lot of support locally, because he's known as a really good man. What he did was not criminal. It was the equivalent of me forgetting my car keys when I go off-island, except the consequences were infinitely worse.

I am of the view that punishing people in those kinds of situations, after the fact, is not effective nor is it a rational social policy.

I would prefer to keep those situations to a minimum, by keeping the number of gun-toting people to a minimum.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I live on an island where the only way off is by plane or boat. Most people who live here have cars on one of the islands with ferry service, or on the mainland.

Everyone out here knows that one sure way to have a bad day is to take a plane or boat off the island and forget your car keys. And yet lots of people here, including me, have done it.

Some weeks back I posted a thread about an off-duty cop who stepped out of his car for five minutes, and it was long enough so his two-year-old son grabbed a pistol and fatally shot his five-year-old daughter.

This guy has a lot of support locally, because he's known as a really good man. What he did was not criminal. It was the equivalent of me forgetting my car keys when I go off-island, except the consequences were infinitely worse.

I am of the view that punishing people in those kinds of situations, after the fact, is not effective nor is it a rational social policy.

I would prefer to keep those situations to a minimum, by keeping the number of gun-toting people to a minimum.

But this is where we run around in circles. We're told that in order to protect freedom, we cannot limit who owns guns or what kind of guns they can have. In fact, every law aimed at limiting the kind of guns people own is doomed to failure for one list of reasons or another. But then you are left with a lot of legally owned guns being used for crimes, accidents, or suicides. So your only other option is to punish people harshly for being stupid with their guns. As you pointed out, the consequences are infinitely worse, so the punishment has to be worse as well.

My position is that we need both. We need to reduce the number of guns out there, we need to limit the firepower of privately owned guns, and we need to have harsh penalties for being stupid with your gun or allowing your gun to be used by someone else who kills with it.

The alternative is to consider 30,000 deaths a year as simply the price of freedom and I don't accept that.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Under no statute. I thought we were discussing new laws to reduce gun violence? I think this should change and we should enact a licensing scheme for owning guns. And then penalties for not following the rules, such as losing your weapon under a "suspended license".

Which isn't going to happen with firearms in common use under the current law.

It won't be changing anytime soon.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Which isn't going to happen with firearms in common use under the current law.

It won't be changing anytime soon.

That's not written in stone. The law says what we want it to say as a collective group. We should be discussing any policies that we think will work and I'd submit that a licensing scheme would be very effective and still allow people to own a gun.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I am of the view that punishing people in those kinds of situations, after the fact, is not effective nor is it a rational social policy.

I would prefer to keep those situations to a minimum, by keeping the number of gun-toting people to a minimum.

And yet, we punish people who run stop lights whether someone is injured or not and most people think that is fair. Stop light runners are every bit the victims of momentary lapses of reason as your gun toting cop, or car key forgetter.

So, what is it about guns that makes you feel they, and their owners, deserve special treatment by being held to a lower level of responsibility than anyone else? Whatever it is, it's woo.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

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.

The evidence is that the odds of any given incerdent being picked up are pretty low.

[geni]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Not really. Its more of a lack of assumption

The classic case to consider is the use of dynamite to break up ammonium sulfate/ammonium nitrate fertilizer mixes. First 20,000 times this was tried no problem. 20,000th they got the Oppau explosion killing 500 people. 32 years of nothing happening isn't a defence from the POV of health and safety.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by geni

The evidence is that the odds of any given incerdent being picked up are pretty low.

Ok when we don't have evidence to suggest that a person has been negligent for 32 years, why would we go ahead and assume so anyways?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Ok when we don't have evidence to suggest that a person has been negligent for 32 years, why would we go ahead and assume so anyways?

Back at you. Why do you assume he never left his gun lying around before this.

There is no conclusive evidence either way but powerful statistical evidence has been provided to show that he most likely did. So both are assumptions but yours is an assumption without any evidence . . . also known as blind faith.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by qayak

Back at you. Why do you assume he never left his gun lying around before this.

There is no conclusive evidence either way but powerful statistical evidence has been provided to show that he most likely did. So both are assumptions but yours is an assumption without any evidence . . . also known as blind faith.

I'm sorry, I must have missed this powerful statistical evidence. Could you link it again please?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I'm sorry, I must have missed this powerful statistical evidence. Could you link it again please?

Certainly:

Quote:

The evidence is that the odds of any given incident being picked up are pretty low.

Quote:

The classic case to consider is the use of dynamite to break up ammonium sulfate/ammonium nitrate fertilizer mixes. First 20,000 times this was tried no problem. 20,000th they got the Oppau explosion killing 500 people. 32 years of nothing happening isn't a defence from the POV of health and safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion

Quote:

This apparently suicidal procedure was in fact common practice. . .

[geni]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Ok when we don't have evidence to suggest that a person has been negligent for 32 years, why would we go ahead and assume so anyways?

Because the odds of getting caught are relatively low thus it is rather unlikely that the first time someone gets caught is the first time it happened.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by qayak

Certainly:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppau_explosion

So this overwhelming, powerful statistical evidence you're speaking of is the use of dynamite to break up ammonium sulfate/ammonium nitrate fertilizer mixesand, and comparing that to leaving a gun in a restroom? Yikes. It would seem that we need not discuss any further until we can start making relevant comparisons.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by geni

Because the odds of getting caught are relatively low thus it is rather unlikely that the first time someone gets caught is the first time it happened.

Would that line of thinking hold up in a court of law you think? For example, when child molesters are caught, they always claim that is their first time doing it. Statistics show that is not likely. Got it. But do we charge them with crimes based on that statistical evidence? Or do we need much more to convict someone of prior crimes?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That's not written in stone. The law says what we want it to say as a collective group. We should be discussing any policies that we think will work and I'd submit that a licensing scheme would be very effective and still allow people to own a gun.

The law as it relates to firearms possession and use is being read at this time as being an individual right, incorporated onto the States through due process under the 14th Amendment, and no licensing scheme for simple possession of firearms in common use is going to stand.

Licenses for concealed carry, tax stamps for NFA weapons and devices, sure.

A license to purchase and possess, no.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

So this overwhelming, powerful statistical evidence you're speaking of is the use of dynamite to break up ammonium sulfate/ammonium nitrate fertilizer mixesand, and comparing that to leaving a gun in a restroom? Yikes. It would seem that we need not discuss any further until we can start making relevant comparisons.

In terms of health and safety assements the same rules apply.

Basing your defence on "It hasn't happened before" will depending on the situation get you somewhere between being sent for retraining to being sent to prision.

In this case you would be better off basing your defence around the gun not being loaded and the limited risk being presented to the school kids. Of course if you base your argument around the risk being presented to school pupils then there is no reason to have an armed guard in the first place so we aren't exactly dealing with rational health and safety assements here.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by geni

Because the odds of getting caught are relatively low thus it is rather unlikely that the first time someone gets caught is the first time it happened.

Exactly, and multiply this by the number of gun owners, and we see how obviously huge the problem is.

Using the lost key anecdote, we can safely assume that millions if a many car owners (as compared to the number in the sample population) forget their keys at such important moments, we can extrapolate that millions of gun owners forget their guns at equally important moments. And there are many more of these important moments for a gun than there are for keys.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by qayak

Exactly, and multiply this by the number of gun owners, and we see how obviously huge the problem is.

Using the lost key anecdote, we can safely assume that millions if a many car owners (as compared to the number in the sample population) forget their keys at such important moments, we can extrapolate that millions of gun owners forget their guns at equally important moments. And there are many more of these important moments for a gun than there are for keys.

I don't think keys and guns are a good comparison.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Would that line of thinking hold up in a court of law you think? For example, when child molesters are caught, they always claim that is their first time doing it. Statistics show that is not likely. Got it. But do we charge them with crimes based on that statistical evidence? Or do we need much more to convict someone of prior crimes?

Health and safety doesn't work on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Its closer to balance of probability.

The usual questions are is there a risk assessment for this activity and if so where there proper produces, training and inspections in place to minimise the risk. And your answer had better not be "there had never been a problem in the past".

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by geni

Not really. Its more of a lack of assumption

The classic case to consider is the use of dynamite to break up ammonium sulfate/ammonium nitrate fertilizer mixes. First 20,000 times this was tried no problem. 20,000th they got the Oppau explosion killing 500 people. 32 years of nothing happening isn't a defence from the POV of health and safety.

I'm a little closer to the actual issue under discussion, and out of all the officers I know, from the guys I served with to the officers I trained here and there to the officers I knew as a kid, there was always a story about so and so leaving his piece in the bathroom, or another guy that killed his TV, but these were single individual events over the course of 50 years out of several hundred officers.

It isn't reasonable to assume that this was the sop of officer in question.

Like I posted earlier, I hate to say it but these type of incidents happen.

I'm not excusing it at any level - I stated the guy should be fired - others want it to go farther.

There are many instances in the military of negligent weapons handling resulting in death or injury, which you guys have never heard about (up to and including a couple of incidents involving belt fed weapons that due to internal parts failure began firing w/o human involvement) and these have occured amongst individuals trained up to higher standards than any average LEO.

If you handle and use firearm in a professional environment on a daily basis, the chances are that eventually a mistake can be made. The best that can be hoped for is that any such mistake doesn't result in injury or death. There should be consequences, and they should apply to everyone that commits the same error of omission or commission

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by geni

Health and safety doesn't work on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Its closer to balance of probability.

The usual questions are is there a risk assessment for this activity and if so where there proper produces, training and inspections in place to minimise the risk. And your answer had better not be "there had never been a problem in the past".

Not entirely sure what you are asking here. But since we were talking about what should happen to this man in terms of punishment, would you agree that the probability of whether or not it has happened before in the past would not apply? And that punishment should only be based on events that we have hard evidence of and not assumptions?

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But this is where we run around in circles. We're told that in order to protect freedom, we cannot limit who owns guns or what kind of guns they can have. In fact, every law aimed at limiting the kind of guns people own is doomed to failure for one list of reasons or another. But then you are left with a lot of legally owned guns being used for crimes, accidents, or suicides. So your only other option is to punish people harshly for being stupid with their guns. As you pointed out, the consequences are infinitely worse, so the punishment has to be worse as well.

I know what we are being told. It's a message that resonates with the dumbest, least educated segment of the male population. It doesn't resonate with me. I think the US can and damn well should impose stringent gun controls, just as every other civilized country has done without detriment to civil liberties.

Gun nuts are rallying today under the theme of "high noon." That is symptomatic of the problem. These knuckle-dragging bozos see themselves as Marshall Kane, but they're not, and this is not the wild west any more.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Not entirely sure what you are asking here. But since we were talking about what should happen to this man in terms of punishment, would you agree that the probability of whether or not it has happened before in the past would not apply?

No. To him that's completely irrelevant. It may be relevant to the school's head teacher/principle (after all if he hired someone with a poor record he would have some explaining to do) but unless the guy lied on his CV then his past record is of no relevance. Either the school has a zero tolerance for safety violations policy in which case he will be fired (I knew a site that worked to that policy killed two people before they realised how stupid it was) or it doesn't.

Quote:

And that punishment should only be based on events that we have hard evidence of and not assumptions?

No any action would be taken after a more comprehensive investigation. Which is the concern here because an investigation doesn't appear to be taking place.

[Captain_Swoop]

Quote:

There are many instances in the military of negligent weapons handling resulting in death or injury, which you guys have never heard about (up to and including a couple of incidents involving belt fed weapons that due to internal parts failure began firing w/o human involvement) and these have occured amongst individuals trained up to higher standards than any average LEO.

The British Warrior ACV had a fault in the foot operated firing mechanism for the 30mm Cannon thet caused it to fire unexpectedly. It resulted in a few 'friendly fire' incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan before it was fixed.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by geni

No. To him that's completely irrelevant. It may be relevant to the school's head teacher/principle (after all if he hired someone with a poor record he would have some explaining to do) but unless the guy lied on his CV then his past record is of no relevance. Either the school has a zero tolerance for safety violations policy in which case he will be fired (I knew a site that worked to that policy killed two people before they realised how stupid it was) or it doesn't.



No any action would be taken after a more comprehensive investigation. Which is the concern here because an investigation doesn't appear to be taking place.

Hmmmmmm... not sure I agree with your take. If this guy was a bus driver and drove through a red light with a bus load of kids, or drove a bus load of kids while intoxicated, there would be serious repercussions on the first offense.

What is it about guns that take the "serious repercussions" out of the equation? Are people so desensitized to the dangers of irresponsible gun handling?

I suggest that if gun owners were held responsible for their lapses just like everyone else, many senseless gun tragedies would be avoided and there would be no need to discuss gun bans or restrictions. Gun owners want it both ways. They want to own guns and not be responsible for their lapses of judgement and yet they would not accept that from anyone else.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

I don't think keys and guns are a good comparison.

If by "not thinking they are a good comparison" you mean it doesn't support your argument, you are correct, but from a statistical point of view, it is a very accurate comparison.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by qayak

What is it about guns that take the "serious repercussions" out of the equation? Are people so desensitized to the dangers of irresponsible gun handling?

I suggest that if gun owners were held responsible for their lapses just like everyone else, many senseless gun tragedies would be avoided and there would be no need to discuss gun bans or restrictions. Gun owners want it both ways. They want to own guns and not be responsible for their lapses of judgement and yet they would not accept that from anyone else.

Well put, and I agree.

Until we see the gun lobby push for more stringent laws to deal with these "lapses of judgement" we can consider their claims of wanting to protect innocent lives to be empty rhetoric.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

So this overwhelming, powerful statistical evidence you're speaking of is the use of dynamite to break up ammonium sulfate/ammonium nitrate fertilizer mixesand, and comparing that to leaving a gun in a restroom? Yikes. It would seem that we need not discuss any further until we can start making relevant comparisons.

Because you don't understand the statistics of the event and how it relates to the one under discussion doesn't make the evidence unimportant, or even more absurdly, wrong.

You're using an appeal to ignorance fallacy as evidence. Please stop.