They didn't even tack on a charge for stealing David Byrne's jacket. Justice has not been done.

As the man killed volunteered for this sh*t I hope the time this guy is serving is for "felon in possession." If society tells you you're too stupid to handle a firearm you better pay attention.

Which is to say, I hope he would be serving nearly as much time had his friend only been injured.

It's always the mundane details...

MisterTweak: "And you have many good qualities," the judge said. "You are a good neighbor, you help the elderly and you are a doting father to your 10-year-old daughter."

But then the judge listed Castanier's criminal record of one felony for making a bomb threat as a juvenile and multiple charges resulting in 11 misdemeanor convictions as an adult including domestic violence, assault, vandalism, and drunken driving.

There is no need to perhaps reconsider if the qualifications for owning a handgun need to be a tad higher than "able to fog a mirror within three attempts", surely.

Part of the charges was for being a felon in possession of a gun.  He didn't have it legally, so he already didn't meet qualifications for handgun ownership.  However, the troll must troll, and we shall put that to rest.

Sid_6.7: 4. Point gun at concrete floor while surrounded by people and attempt to pull trigger.

Yeah, "had a friend".

I'm sorry for your loss.

"If you looK in the mirror that is your world."That has to be one of the stupidest things to come out of a judges mouth.

I keep tootsie rolls in the chamber of my rifle.  Only chocolate though, the other flavors are much softer and get mush in the star chamber.  Also, if you need to clean your barrel, just pour a little lighter fluid down and set ablaze.  And don't use the flash suppressor to pick your teeth more than once a day.

I guess we know where Lurch's tailor ended up.  I've bought better-fitting jackets off the rack.

I'd like to know how many lawful gun owners, and how many friends of lawful gun owners, think that you can point a gun or rifle at anything you want and pull the trigger as long as you are sure it is empty.

I would really like to know that percentage as we move forward with the discussion.

Estimates welcomed.

FTFA: "I truly believe it was an accident but what I don't understand is why does someone put a bullet in the chamber of a gun and show a lack of respect intelligence by pointing a loaded gun at a good friend and pulls the trigger."

FTFY.

doglover: Does nobody get that the current laws are already enough to keep guns out of people's hands IF LAWS WORKED LIKE THAT!?

What's the point of having a right to keep and bear arms against an oppressive government if the government can disarm anyone they want by making them criminals. Either the right exists or it doesn't.

jtown: I guess we know where Lurch's tailor ended up.  I've bought better-fitting jackets off the rack.

This is not my beautiful wife....

Ah one of the classic blunders. Right up there with getting involved in a land war in Asia.

The judge said "and you have many good qualities"

Including: one felony for making a bomb threat as a juvenile and multiple charges resulting in 11 misdemeanor convictions as an adult including domestic violence, assault, vandalism, and drunken driving

Upstanding citizen!

Yeah, I was going to make my usual "actual accidents with firearms are one-in-a-million, the rest of 'accidents' are negligence, which isn't the same thing", but I think TFA already pretty much covers that for me.

These kinds of idiots are the reason the bar for being pulled over for reckless driving/drunk driving is so low and your lawnmower has to have a warning sticker not to shove your arm underneath while it's running, people do stupid things with dangerous gear with astonishing frequency and no regard for the safety of others.  Not just with guns or cars, but with farking everything remotely dangerous.

Alcohol + Firearm=Darwin Wins.

Another Government Employee: Alcohol + Firearm=Darwin Wins.

If not for the firearm, these men would be out there trying to have sex with our daughters and pass on their stupid to the next generation.

way south: Another Government Employee: Alcohol + Firearm=Darwin Wins.

If not for the firearm, these men would be out there trying to have sex with our daughters and pass on their stupid to the next generation.

So THAT's what they're aiming for with that Guns In Bars bill in alabama or some similar red state!

That wasn't just sporting stupid, it was assault stupid.

Jim_Callahan: Yeah, I was going to make my usual "actual accidents with firearms are one-in-a-million, the rest of 'accidents' are negligence, which isn't the same thing"

While it's certainly possible to create definitions that separate these things, I'm not sure that's really a useful distinction to make.
In fact it really seems purely academic; it kind of misses the point.


Jim_Callahan: people do stupid things with dangerous gear with astonishing frequency and no regard for the safety of others.

And that's why.  The bigger more important point is that people will do stupid things, period.  It is a statistical guarantee, and any discussion must take that reality into account.  THAT is really the argument of the people who talk about firearms accidents, and defining the word "accident" out of the argument doesn't make those accidental (or negligent) deaths go away, or even make them any less relevant.

The thing is, people don't even have to be complete idiots to do it.  It's just a fact of life that familiarity can create carelessness.  The longer people live with firearms without incident, the more likely they are to treat them as relatively harmless and the more likely they are to take unsafe "shortcuts" or do careless things while handling or storing them.  It's easy to write all these incidents off as people being complete morons, and in some cases (like this one) they blatantly are, but in a lot of cases it is really just the inevitable consequences of a lot of people taking little risks with familiar firearms.

Gawdzila: Jim_Callahan: Yeah, I was going to make my usual "actual accidents with firearms are one-in-a-million, the rest of 'accidents' are negligence, which isn't the same thing"

While it's certainly possible to create definitions that separate these things, I'm not sure that's really a useful distinction to make.
In fact it really seems purely academic; it kind of misses the point.

Well, an accident is nobody's fault.  Negligence is still your fault even if you didn't intend that specific possible result of your reckless behavior to occur.

It's more a legal distinction than an academic one.  You can be punished for negligence (and should), but not for accidents.  Sure, the distinction doesn't bring people on the wrong end of these things back to life (or replace their missing limbs, or undo their concussion or whatever) but it discourages people from doing stupid shiat to a degree, since they can't adopt an attitude of "wasn't my fault" about it.

//I'm somewhat confused by your implication that this is somehow exceptional in its inability to rewind time.  Are most other legal definitions and distinctions executed from a Tardis nowadays or something?

Fark tag is incorrect. Correct tag is "Darwin Wins"

Burroughs already did it,don't play drunken William tell with your wife.
/I kinda think he murdered her and it wasn't an accident.

A Terrible Human: Burroughs already did it,don't play drunken William tell with your wife.
/I kinda think he murdered her and it wasn't an accident.

According to Burroughs, there are no accidents.

Smoking GNU: way south: Another Government Employee: Alcohol + Firearm=Darwin Wins.

If not for the firearm, these men would be out there trying to have sex with our daughters and pass on their stupid to the next generation.

So THAT's what they're aiming for with that Guns In Bars bill in alabama or some similar red state!

At least they're sticking with a theme.
You can't be all for personal responsibility and then back down when someone makes a bad decision.

shiat, if I didn't want to get shot, I would have moved out the way.

I knew a girl in college who, when she saw my .357 on my dresser, asked if she could see it. I opened it and checked to make sure it was empty. From her vantage point (sitting on the end of the bed) she could not have seen firsthand that it was empty. I handed it to her and she immediately pointed it at the TV and started pulling the trigger.

I said: Stop! Are you f*cking crazy!?

She said: I saw you check it.

I told her to never touch ANY of my guns, consider them always to be loaded. She got mad and she didn't touch ANY of my guns again.

(Damn it.)

/Oh well...

Benjamin Orr: jtown: I guess we know where Lurch's tailor ended up.  I've bought better-fitting jackets off the rack.

This is not my beautiful wife....

same as it ever was.

doglover: I agree. We should limit people's ability to own and operate motor vehicles

You are, of course, correct that cars can be dangerous and sometimes people use them carelessly.
I wasn't overlooking that fact, though, so I'm not sure why the point needed to be made.  After all, we DO limit people's ability to own and operate motor vehicles.  That's why, for instance, having a drivers license is a privilege and not a right, it's why we have police and highway patrol to actively enforce traffic laws, that's why your license can be taken away if you do reckless things, and why we have constant discussions about, and revisions of, the laws that determine safety standards for the cars we drive.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm arguing for particular gun control regulations on that basis.
You'll note that at no point did I make any such suggestion.  I merely offered that making distinctions between "accidents" and "negligence" wasn't necessarily useful when discussing the possible merits or drawbacks of whatever legislation may come under debate.


Jim_Callahan: Well, an accident is nobody's fault. Negligence is still your fault even if you didn't intend that specific possible result of your reckless behavior to occur.

It's more a legal distinction than an academic one.

A fair point.  I was considering the distinction mostly from the standpoint of arguing over the practical effects of widespread gun ownership and debating over those statistics that are always brought up about accidental gun deaths.  You're right, though, legal consequences are an important consideration.

Jim_Callahan: //I'm somewhat confused by your implication that this is somehow exceptional in its inability to rewind time.

Haha, I didn't mean to imply that.  I simply meant that reclassifying deaths as "negligent" rather than "accidental" does not necessarily make them any less relevant to discussions about gun safety or ownership.