critically wounded by celebratory gunfire

[MichaelHarris]

&quot CNN) -- A west Florida boy is in critical condition after a bullet apparently fired skyward during a New Year's celebration went into his head, authorities said Sunday.

The 12-year-old boy was sitting in the front yard of his Ruskin, Florida, home watching fireworks around 1 a.m. Sunday when he fell to the ground, bleeding from the nose and eyes, " http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/01/us/florida-celebratory-gunfire/index.html

[Crunchy Frog]

1. It's sad...

but it's the price we pay for freedom.

[SteveW]

14. And that "freedom" is?

Last I checked, no one was free under the law to shoot guns into the air in a celebratory fashion. Do you have other information?

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Freedom to bear arms.

Obviously you can't expect that everyone will exercize that freedom responsibly, hence the occasional tragedy. Still, the occasional tragedy is worth it given the alternative of not having gun freedom.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

22. No you cannot expect everyone to behave responsibly

Of course, that problem exists with everything in this world.

And yes - the occasional tragedy is VERY much worth the alternative.

[iverglas]

26. et tu, Bruto?

And yes - the occasional tragedy is VERY much worth the alternative.

You do realize that what you wrote doesn't actually make sense, right?

I think you meant to say that it is worth an "occasional tragedy" if it means "the alternative" doesn't come to pass.

That is, you getting your way when it comes to regulation of access to firearms is worth somebody else getting maimed or killed now and then. (You don't specify what this "alternative" is, but it is obviously whatever you object to in terms of firearms regulation.)

How come your opinion rules?

Does the opinion of the maimed or dead person, or their family or friends or community, count for anything in your world?

One has no idea why you don't give a toss about people getting maimed or killed, or otherwise victimized by firearm, but one is certainly curious why you think your whims trump their lives.

Of course, one expects to go to one's grave still wondering, so you should not feel compelled to try to explain it all. Don't be shy, should you wish to, though.

[ellisonz]

27. Don't hold your breathe.

"You don't specify what this "alternative" is, but it is obviously whatever you object to in terms of firearms regulation.)"

The two answers you'll generally get are "inconvenience" and a vague threat to what they construe to be "liberty." They think that such incidents are "rare" and that since the homicide rate/violent crime is down you should just be happy and accept per capita numbers substantially higher than the rest of the Westernized world.

[iverglas]

28. if I had held my breath

while waiting for reasoned, ethical arguments for the gun militant agenda, well, I'd have been dead these ... hmm, profile says member since 2001, posting in Guns nearly that long, and sporting a Canadian Coalition for Gun Control sticker on my vehicle since well before then ... let's just say quite a few years, now!

It's "rare" for someone to be hit by a stray bullet fired in "celebration" ... it's "rare" for a kid to be hit in gang crossfire ... it's "rare" for an abusive man to shoot his partner and then himself ... it's "rare" for a depressed adolescent to shoot themself in the head ... it's "rare" for a person in the US with a permit to carry a firearm to use it unlawfully ... it's "rare" for a firearm purchased from a private seller at a gun show to be used in a crime (although actually it isn't) ... it's "rare" for a vengeful employee, or some miserable sociopath or narcissist, to go gunning for random members of the group they blame for their woes ... it's "rare" for a toddler to get hold of a parent's firearm and do themself serious harm ... it's "rare" for so many harms associated with firearms to occur ...

And yet when you add them all up, and tot up the costs of those harms in personal and social as well as economic terms, well, the picture is just a little different from one person struck by a stray bullet.

But hey, it's all worth it if ... well, I guess I'll just have to keep working on the rest of that sentence.

[iverglas]

17. who is this "we", now?

Did you get a bullet in your head too???

[Crunchy Frog]

33. Just trying to encourage discussion by saying something provocative.

It's a reasonable question. How much mayhem and death would it take to justify the loss of some of our precious liberties?

[Buzz cook]

35. Well we started throwing our rights away because

Hippies and blacks don't need no 4th amendment. But as you've no doubt noticed the sale of our rights went wholesale after 9/11.

The one right that hasn't diminished is gun ownership. Can't say that it's a fair trade.

[Simo 1939_1940]

2. And your point is? NT

[chrisa]

3. It's not like he needs one. It's a news story relevant to guns.

[ManiacJoe]

4. Drive-by news postings are not that helpful or wanted here.

If one is looking to start a conversation, add some comments about why the article is posted.

[MichaelHarris]

6. who are you kidding

say it, you only want pro-gun discussion here. This post follows every rule DU has imposed.

[Simo 1939_1940]

8. "........say it, you only want pro-gun discussion here."

No - that's not what's being said.

What's being said is that we prefer appeals to intellect over the cheap and obvious appeals to emotion that you peddle.

[ManiacJoe]

11. We will accept any discussion you choose to start.

Unfortunately, you did not start one with the OP; you just posted a current events article easily found elsewhere.

Next time, start a discussion by actually starting a conversation.

[Paladin]

13. One Of Your Guns/RKBA Group Pals Has Started A Conversation On This Sort Of Shooting...

in another section of DU. He's attributing such shootings to the Hispanic community, and he's catching hell for it.....

[Simo 1939_1940]

9. See posts #4 and #8 NT

[SteveW]

15. OPs would have some credibility if they broached issue-oriented points...

Otherwise, the OPs have a strong whiff of drive-by postings. Perhaps you can help: What is the significance of this posting?

Incidentally, do you have any figures on the number of people killed by DWI during the New Year's week-end?

[rrneck]

5. Who fired the bullet? nt

[rl6214]

7. 6pak, did you change your screen name?

Do a google search for car accidents and deaths on New Years and I'll be willing to bet the accidents with cars far out numbers the guns.

This event does not affect my right to keep and bear arms.

[LAGC]

10. Dipshits really shouldn't shoot guns aimlessly into the air.

If you're going to fire some celebratory shots, do so into soft ground.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. No one here is for shooting into the air.

But you will use anything in you efforts to get guns banned.

[iverglas]

18. no one here is for getting guns banned

But you will use anything, in your efforts to avoid any genuine discussion of the problems associated with unregulated access to firearms.


Note to any jurors reading this post:

The post to which I am replying reads:

No one here is for shooting into the air.
But you will use anything in you <sic> efforts to get guns banned.

To my knowledge, the originator of this thread has not shown any evidence of making efforts to get guns banned and this poster cannot substantiate the allegation made there; the statement about that poster made above thus includes a false allegation: that the thread originator has made such efforts.

My reply is therefore a logical deduction, and the only one I see as possible, from the fact that the poster to whom I am replying chose to make a false statement about the thread originator rather than make any comment at all about the story reported and the issues it obviously raises.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. A slight correction: No one that has posted in this thread so far is for banning guns.

At least one semi-regular poster has stated such at his own blog.
But no, the OP has not made such an effort that I am aware of. However, access to guns is hardly unregulated, even in Florida.

[iverglas]

24. really?

However, access to guns is hardly unregulated, even in Florida.

You know of someone in Florida or anywhere else in the USofA who is actually UNABLE to acquire pretty much any firearm their little heart desires, in a reasonable time for a reasonable price?

Access to firearms is essentially unregulated in the US.

I can't think of any reason that you would want to pretend that I said something like, oh, legal access, so I can't think why you would dispute what I said.

The rest of your post: diversionary grooming!


Do I need to include a note to potential jurors with this post? I'm sure somebody can trump up some grounds for complaint (i.e. for having my voice silenced in this thread and any thread I might post in), but I can't think of what it might be, so I can't think of what proactive action to take ...

[Union Scribe]

23. Lol.

One paragraph reply. Four paragraph legal defense.

[iverglas]

25. oh, I am wounded

Mortally wounded, I tell you.

I guess I'll just have to use my dying breath to quote Mark Twain again:

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is tying its shoelaces.

The corollary goes something like how easy it is to say something short and false and then bravely shout that the debunker is protesting too much ...

[Union Scribe]

29. As usual, I've no idea what you're on about.

I was laughing at you posting messages to potential jurors. That's it. Do carry on though, as we've all missed your posts I'm sure.

[iverglas]

31. oh, now

You know all about self-defence, I think, and the importance of being forearmed! I may never need those addresses to the jury, but dang, the one time I needed one and didn't have it might just be the time somebody went gunning for my post.

I have been informed of the results of one unsuccessful alert on a post of mine; while I, as a juror, always inform the poster whose post I have adjudicated of my identity and my vote and reasons, not many others do so, so I have no idea how many alerts are being made on my posts. That one unsuccessful one I was informed about included this vote and these reasons stated by one of the jurors (it was close: a tie vote, including one vote to hide with the fabulous reason "too much noise", spared my post):

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Someone disagreeeing with the alerted <my post was on an alert made on another person's post and the reason stated for the alert> isn't against the rules and this looks like a petty Attempt to block iverglas from the conversation. I hope it doesn't succeed

Oh, surely not a petty attempt to block me from the conversation! But given that at least one person has thought that to be so, well hmm, maybe I should make that juror's comment my sig line ...

[Remmah2]

30. Only regulated to death.

Bury them in paper and bullshit.

[iverglas]

32. ah, so

You agree that the allegation was a false one.

Thank you for going to the effort of saying so!

[Remmah2]

19. I wonder how many people were DUI on New Years Eve?

Stupid people with cars, stupid people with firearms, what do they have in common.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. You have to have a licence to drive a car

and you can lose your licence if you're caught DUI.

[oneshooter]

36. You have to have a licence to drive a car legaly on public roadways.

[Atypical Liberal]

20. Any point of discussion or is this just a drive-by police blotter?