In Missouri, prosecutors are considering criminal charges against Ronald Long after he shoot his wife, Patsy, in the chest while using his .22-caliber handgun to try to put holes in a wall.
Ronald Long appears to have been frustrated after several unsuccessful attempts to to put a hole in the exterior wall of their house. It was the second shot that hit and killed his wife. It is often hard to decide whether criminal charges are warranted. I tend to take the view that this is negligence and he is already paying dearly for his mistake. For a column on other such cases, click here. The big difference here is the fact that it was an exterior wall where someone might have been hit on the other side.
Notably, this follows a number of police officers who have killed their wives in such accidents, though none involved home improvement projects. Click here
For the full story, click here
JT, what kind of problem do you have that stories about firearms always seem to get posted here? Are you afraid of guns?
I took my firearms training in 1965 at my High School in the 8th grade. We brought our rifles to school each day there was firearms training and kept them in our unlocked school lockers. Kids would have their firearms on the school buses and if there was live firing at the firearms training they would have ammunition with them and that would be stored in their school locker also. This was a school of hundreds of kids; there was NEVER a problem in the 30 years this went on until the firearms training was moved to the National Guard Armory because they had a firing range there.
Yes, you liberals have given us one heck of a world with your stupid social engineering. I hope we all survive it.
But…….what would Keith Dolbermann & his live in 24 year old girlfriend do?
niblet (just a little corny): your problem is that you’re reflexively in favor of anything that sounds like it leads to more guns.
That’s not a philosophy, that’s a fetish.
JT includes stuff like this because people like you and groups like GOA frequently make arguments about gun rights that, frankly speaking, are absolutely insane in their permissiveness. There is no absolute right to gun possession and ownership, any more than there’s an absolute right to speech. Here we have a case of a guy killing his wife because he thought a .22 was the same thing as a power tool–doesn’t that make you think about what exactly was meant by the term “well-regulated militia”? Do you think the 2nd Amendment is meant to protect his right to use his gun for a drill, at the expense of his wife’s safety? GOA would likely argue that, whether it’s meant to or not, it does and there shouldn’t be a debate about it. I bet you’d agree with that.
How about yesterday, when you claimed without evidence that having guns in a tiny percentage of airplane cockpits has prevented terrorism? That was like saying your computer monitor prevents Ebola–you have no reason to think what you do, except your fetish compels you to. “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” homeboy.
Oh, and niblet, don’t hate on Keith O just because he’s living the dream. Just because you’re not doing as well with the ladies doesn’t mean you have to feel inadequate. Buck up, little shooter!
niblet:
Churchill said that “a man is about as big as the things that make him angry.” Is this comment I should measure you?
Ok, I am a gun owner and have been for almost 50 years. And I completely support gun control and the idea of regulating gun ownership.
Kermudgeon on the Virginia Tech thread suggested arming everybody on campus. Well that’s a swell idea! Words fail.
Niblet, you object to liberal social engineering: Well you better change your tune. Without liberal “social engineering”, your children would be working in mines, you would be working 6 day weeks with no sick or retirement benefits, period. You would be working for peanuts, that is if your employer saw fit to pay you even that. The food you ate would be contaminated with ecoli and no government testing. The medicines you took would be made in China and no restrictions on their content either. You wouldn’t have a right to protest any firings or evictions, or convictions. You would just be a nice industrial peasant.
You ought to get down on your knees and give thanks to God that He sent liberals to do His Work down here!
What work you ask?
Compassion, love of neighbor. “Hoc est preceptum meum…” Jesus would never have written the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act! He would have scourged those GOP Senators from the hall!
Ok, rant over.
Correction: It was you, Niblet, who suggested carry and conceal as the solution for campus shootings!
Sorry Kerm.
DW
The half dozen of you sure like to attack when put in a corner. Kids do that.
Gotta have a thick skin in this line of work Niblet…
I’ve often noticed that it is the usually the die-hard “conservatives” that go into “attack” mode whenever someone challenges or criticizes them on anything. It doesn’t matter whether it is gun issues or the separation of church and state. Funny how that works.
Susan,
I have been falling prey of late to the temptation to get adversarial rather than establish dialogues. So mea culpa.
I really did hope we could get the visitor(s) to talk issues but there is an agenda of pillorying our host and MSNBC and Keith Olberman while posting anti-Obama news clippings and that’s the game for them.
Vince Caminiti had a theory that they were paid shills who do this kind of thing for a commission…could he be right? Who can say?
No amount of laws can fix stupid. Take away the guns, and the same guy might just use a bow and arrow instead. And no amount of laws can fix crime.
Somewhere between criminals and idiots, there’s the rest of us. I hope no one is arguing that guns aren’t important, because common sense tells us guns are important, useful, and necessary.
Jay, if someone can accurately punch holes through his wall with an archery set, they’re skilled enough to where I’m not worried too much about their aim.
DW, I LIKE to see the ultra-conservatives questioned and challenged, so there are no mea culpas necessary.
As for some of the visitors, I’ve noticed the same thing you have; the minute our host writes a column that is in any way critical of guns, religious extremists, law enforcement officials who are a little TOO aggressive “in the line of duty” and cross the line from investigation into persecution, they come out swinging. “Niblet’s” first response to this column is hard evidence of that fact. Then they go off on their usual tangent, which is as you stated, with no real discussion of the issue or topic.
Why do they work so hard to distract us from the topic, I wonder? Are they so afraid of disagreement with their views they have to squash it whenever they see it? From what I’ve seen, my answer to my own question is an unqualified YES.
I agree with you as always Susan. They are inept at argumentation. But their role models on the national stage share a similar ineptness so they don’t have any good mentors.
This is not to say the conservative movement lacks good minds on its side. They have them. Jay Sekulow is one such. But they are decidedly exceptions.
Susan:
I personally enjoy having Jay, msnbcer, kermudgeon, and niblet in the mix. They are articulate advocates of their positions despite their occasional meandering style of argument,and they do show many of us how the other side thinks. While I have no problem challenging their assertions with some good natured sarcasm, discouraging their right to speak would detract from the liveliness of the forum, not that anyone has even suggested that. Welcoming dissent separates those who think like I do from the typical neo-con. I agree with Justice Brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I think all of our ideas need to be held up to the light so that all the flaws can be seen. Argue on!
Mespo.
Substitute “vituperative” for “articulate” and I might sign on to that opinion.
As to the entertainment value. Yes they do add to the mix. But I have yet, outside of Jay, hear them mount a sustained articulate argument.
Well, I do give them a handicap score in view of their ideology.
Not that he needs my 2 cents for defense … but I must complain that Jay has been maligned here for no reason. Whether I agree with him or not, he’s always been civil, passionate and thoughtful. As far as I’m concerned, Jay’s comments have usually been provocative, sometimes argumentative and always reflective of his reasoning. I most respectfully take umbrage in his being lumped in with the ‘usual suspects.’
Mespo, you’re just more adventurous in “direct engagement” than I am. And you’ve obviously had more experience in doing this without it becoming a verbal battle, which is an advantage. Maybe I just need more practice in walking the verbal tightrope. It certainly can’t hurt for me to try.
I, for one, have never maligned Jay, Vince. He is always thoughtful and his presence here pre-dates the recent influx of partisan talking-points posters. Any criticism of them, does not include him.
Did you spot a post criticizing him on this thread? Mespo mentioned him with some other conservatives, but the Mespo/Jay interchanges have always been carried on with wit and mutual respect of each other’s abilities.
I must apologize, because it appears that Jay Sekulow and myself may have been used confused here at this blog. If that is that case, I’ll consider it a compliment, but I hope you are not too disappointed to know that I am just “Jay.” No hard feelings, and I hope we shall continue to have great dialogue every time we cross paths.
DW: I have apparently lost my ability to be witty. I was joking that Mespo had lumped Jay into the small group – and I was hoping Jay would pop in for some banter. I should have been more clear.
Jay: Indeed you are the original and only with reference to my remarks.
Very sorry if my miserable attempt at humor caused any consternation. I need more fiber.
Jay,
Darn it. I was thinking you might be Jay S. But even if you are not, you are most welcome here! By the way, what is your opinion about the Naval Academy’s custom of dipping the national Colors when they pass before the Cross? Does this raise a separation issue?
Vince,
No harm, no foul… I feared it was I that had said something slighting somewhere in my heavy handed way. You are witty as ever and I had the pleasure of visiting your DailyBinx site today. Delightful! Highly recommended.
DW
Susan:
I think that you are a sincere passionate advocate and I think you walk the tightrope quite well. Nothing crystallizes our beliefs like pressure from an opponent since it forces the flaws out in the open, and makes us see our own shortcomings as an advocate. I had a judge tell me many years ago that two articulate advocates always produce a diamond because the heat and pressure always inures to the benefit of the understanding of the listener. I heartily agree with that metaphor.
Thank you, Mespo, for such a nice compliment, which to me means a lot. Being here has really helped in that regard, and I thank JT for writing these posts and providing a great opportunity for civil yet spirited discussion, even when there is disagreement. I’ll continue to practice though, as I think there’s always room for improvement.
@ DW
“what is your opinion about the Naval Academy’s custom of dipping the national Colors when they pass before the Cross? Does this raise a separation issue?”
Might I emphasize “custom” in your word choice. Depending on the length of time of such a practice it may have lost any sincere belief or religious purpose from its origination. Maybe, it’s more of a historical tradition now. (The usual O’Connor inquiry I guess.) I suppose the question is whether this practice advances religion? I doubt that it does, and so I’m voting “no” separation issue here.
What do you think?
Well you caught me out..of course like you I choose my words carefully and “custom” is in there deliberately.
The court has time and again used established practices of long standing to get around facing separation questions squarely. You know them as well as I, since they get cited over and over. My feeling is that even though O’Connor, bless her heart, has gone, the Court if presented with litigation on this would rule on the custom of it and it would pass the Lemon test.
Jay,
File this under the “Lord, save us from your foolish and erring servants” category:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/27/me-evolution-bill-moves-forward/
Deeply:
As a Virginian, I am gratified to see this bill advance especially as my kids now apply to college. I will take a competitive advantage wherever it shows and if Floridians want to shoot themselves in the foot (like our citizens from Kansas temporarily did), I say fire away. I also think Florida teachers should also teach, as an alternative to evolution, that Poseidon rules the waves and Zeus the heavens. By the way, would you know if all Republicans are anti-intellectual, or just the “bright” ones?
Mespo!
Just my kind of question! All Republicans are not to be stereotyped! No! They are individuals with varying backgrounds and life experiences! Yes, indeed.
But something happens when they aggregate in groups.
Something amazing!
They all tend to start speaking and thinking and dressing and voting the same. Almost identically in fact! They become a R-Human, a hitherto unknown variant of Homo Sapiens. A giant Hive Mind.
Yes, the Hive Mind is anti-intellectual. And it always has been. Just look how it treated Adlai Stevenson! Or Senator Paul Simon for that matter. It has a lab-roven antipathy toward science, scientists, universities, academicians, and egg-heads of all stripes and conditions.
And no, scientists have not yet isolated any individual Republicans for intellectual testing, so we can’t say there are any “bright” ones with any certainty. Republicans are a lot like ants. Single specimens removed from the nest, seem to wander around aimlessly and show no purposive behavior or sign of intelligence. Only when they aggregate does the emergent phenomena of the group mind emerge! Then we can say, by the use of various metrics, that their collective intelligence is low, low indeed.
Indeed, a low cunning seems to exemplify the Republican Party, but no real sign of higher cerebral functioning.
Professor DW Pumperflugel
Wheelbarrow State Normal College
Deeply,
Now I see subtraction by addition. I like it, and will plagiarize freely!
Be sure you attribute so I may receive proper credit. I am under a little strain here: haven’t published successfully in 15 years and my department chair in addition to the Faculty Senate is getting restive!
My next paper may meet with more success.
“House Republicans and Hooting Simians, a cross-species comparison of mobbing strategies in high stress environments.”
Deeply:
A better title, if I might suggest one, would be “House Republicans and Hooters Girls: A cross-species comparison of reproductive strategies in high stress environments.” It’s sure to be published.
Such a good idea!
I will get my single beleagured post-doc student to start hammering out a grant proposal! This has possibilities!
My last proposal “Clinical Effects of Sudden Cash Windfalls on the Lower Brain” got turned down by those tightwads at NSF. They probably didn’t like the fact that I was restricting the population for tissue sampling to Jack Abramoff largess recipients, practically the entire Republican Caucus!
Deeply:
LOL. I’m working on “Effects of Combat Stress and Republicanism on Vietnam Era Aviators resulting in Greed-induced Paranoia.” I subtitle it the “Duke Cunningham Story.” I think it actually makes a better screenplay.
ROFL!
We’re Laff Riots tonight, Mespo!
but I’m heading to bed…before I fall asleep on the keyboard!
DW
Deeply:
Ditto here. Just waiting for the Latest on UCLA
Deeply Worried wrote:
ROFL! We’re Laff Riots tonight, Mespo!
*************
Darn, and I missed all the fun on this discussion thread last night. I hate it when that happens. lol
On a more serious note, I agree with what you said about what tends to happen to Republicans when they “aggregate in groups,” a phenomenon you referred to as the “giant hive mind.” (Fantastic analogy, by the way, which I’m sorely tempted to borrow.) This may account for most of their angry buzzing whenever an opponent dares to question or disagree with their long-held beliefs. Beliefs which are not necessarily facts.
I also agree with Mespo that we cannot and should not judge ALL Republicans for the narrow-minds of many, such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and the dreaded Ann Coulter, to name just three of the worst. Thanks, Mespo, for that important reminder.
How often do you yourself do Archery or do you just write about it?
Can I ask though – how did you get this picked up and into google news?
Very impressive that this blog is syndicated through Google and is it something that is just up to Google or you actively created?
Obviously this is a popular blog with great data so well done on your seo success..
Archery greats you should write about next.