Don't see the problem here
If you're going to have a backwards, out-of-date, deranged and downright dangerous legal right to do something stupid, it might as well apply to everyone.
US judge rules quadriplegic can bear arms
A US judge has ruled that a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic, who is "physically unable to hold a gun or pull a trigger", can have a firearms permit allowing him to bear arms. James Cap, 46, of Manville, New Jersey had been fighting for two-and-a-half years to get the go-ahead to buy firearms. In his youth, he'd been a keen …
-
Friday 13th November 2009 13:52 GMT LuMan
What??
Is it just me, or does anyone else out there think this is absolutely ludicrous. Thousands of people worldwide are killed or injured because of gun misuse - whether intentional or accidental and still it's deemed OK to grant a license to a man who is physically unable to make a gun safe (i.e. unload the thing) without assistance.
I just hope common sense prevails and those involved actually understand the difference between having the RIGHT to do something and having the ABILITY to actually be able to do it.
A big, red f*cking STOP (please) sign from me!
-
Friday 13th November 2009 15:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
@ What??
Get a fucking grip will you:
"it's deemed OK to grant a license to a man who is physically unable to make a gun safe (i.e. unload the thing) without assistance."
Which also means he is physically unable to make the gun unsafe (i.e. load the thing) without assistance.
I presume this gentleman has a "carer", someone who is suitably able bodied and responsible willing to take him hunting, load the weapon, place the weapon in his (presumably safe) specially adapted wheel chair and then supervise him while he takes the shot.
Fuck me th guy has lost enough enjoyment so why take this one thing from him?
-
-
Friday 13th November 2009 15:47 GMT TBW
What "right"?
I guess I'll just be the only comment not rabidly anti-gun here, but I notice that both articles, and the previous comments, all talk about the man's "right" to bear arms.
Both articles say the man has to get a permit before he can buy a gun. The linked NJ News article itself actually goes so far as to explicitly state that the permit is "a requirement for the purchase of any gun in New Jersey".
If you have to ask permission to do something, it is not a right. If it is standard legal procedure to deny you something by default (until you get a permit to give you permission), it is not a right. I'm surprised this New Jersey statute hasn't been taken to court on Second Amendment grounds.
It's not just this one man's right to bear arms that's been infringed here, if that article is truly correct in saying a permit is needed for ANY firearm in NJ. I'm actually surprised the NRA isn't all over that law.
-
Friday 13th November 2009 16:31 GMT Dan Paul
Gun Rights being argued by people who let govt tell them how many sheets of TP they can use!?!
As a "Damn Yankee" I feel that it is awfully strange to hear you Britons criticizing this disabled persons gun rights or the "Right to Bear Arms" in any case.
The British people have allowed their "gubmint" to take away almost all of your freedoms. You live in a Nanny State where politicans appear to be able to tell you how many sheets of toilet paper you are allowed to use and you actually like this. There are so many CCTV cameras watching the British people that it makes your country seem like "The Truman Show".
I guess I should have said the "British Sheeple".
It was private gun ownership that allowed us "Colonials" to revolt against the British. No wonder your government took away your gun rights, they actually learned something from the whole process.
Frankly I don't believe or trust ANY government now so the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is even more important in this day and age.
Laws against discrimination against the disabled take precedence in THIS case and regardless of the guy's physical capabilities, they could not have prevented his ownership of firearms unless he was mentally incompetent or a convicted felon.
The "Puff & sip" technology probably could even allow him to drive a car, eventually so why could it not include operation of the safety switch on the gun? I'm sure he has a "Caregiver" who would be with him at all times so loading/unloading the gun is not that much of an issue.
In addition to guns; auto's, baseball/cricket bats, darts, hammers etc can all be classified as weaponS, DEPENDING ON HOW THEY ARE USED AND WITH WHAT INTENT!
The fact remains that by themselves, guns don't kill people... they require a nutjob to point them and shoot them AT people. This guy's not a nutjob, case closed.
Conversely, your government thinks it knows whats best for it's sheeple or they are afraid that some of you will develop enough spine to kick the patronizing inbred political snobs off the island (by force if need be).
-
Friday 13th November 2009 16:31 GMT Sarah Bee
Re: Gun Rights being argued by people who let govt tell them how many sheets of TP they can use!?!
Oh goody! Another searing debate about guns between bemused Brits and gung-ho Americans! I SIMPLY CANNOT CONTAIN MY EXCITEMENT.
Right, new comments rule. Any smug git of any nationality using the threadbare old pun 'sheeple' will get nixed to hell and back. The right to nix idiocies is enshrined in *my* constitution.
Please do continue with this very interesting and not at all well-trodden load of old bollocks.
-
Friday 13th November 2009 18:25 GMT Owen Milton
stray thought
Just as a food for thought for the collective, assuming New Jersey is like New York state, there's a surplus of dear every year... as in the state pays people to go and kill them even after all the hunting permits and such have been issued. So Mr.Shooting Chair isn't going to be causing any more horrible pain and suffering than would already have been mandated. And it's at least somewhat likely that his care-giver might take the meat and actually use it for something.
As for the safety issue, meh... The guy can't load the gun or unload it without a lot of help. Even basic aiming will require assistance, so unless his care-giver (trained in firearm safety) is a complete moron (always a possibility) there's no greater chance of him shooting a person than anyone else with a gun.
-
Friday 13th November 2009 18:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
RE: What?? -- rights regardless of disabilities; safety in a locked cabinet
The right to bear arms is different from the ability to bear arms. In a free society, the law must be equally applied to citizens and not penalize citizens based upon their physical disability.
The process of overcoming physical disabilities drives the human condition to rehabilitation after injury. If it is determined that the process is too difficult, society is no less safe with a gun in a cabinet.
I find it absolutely ludicrous that people are concerned that a gun is less save locked in a cabinet hanging on the wall of a paralyzed human who needs assistance from another qualified individual to take it down than in the hands of someone who is able to wield he weapon at will...
FAIL for lack of common sense of socialists who want to take rights away from disabled people and socialists who would rather have guns in the hands of people instead of locked in cabinets
-
Friday 13th November 2009 18:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
@right-wing gunslinging redneck yokel
Intentional homicides per 100,000 people per year:
UK: 2.0
USA: 5.8
Firearms-related deaths per 100,000 people per year:
UK: 0.096
USA: 9.725
Figure it out.
(sources:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)
-
-
Friday 13th November 2009 21:05 GMT Dan Paul
@Sara Bee, Fair Play Moderation includes use of "merkin" and other derogatory terms
Sara Bee,
I'm sure you will be overjoyed (or bemused) to hear my reply. Let's look at the list of unmoderated derogatory terms, smug git, idiocies, old bollocks, added for additional sarcasm "bemused Brits and gung- ho Americans", merkins (they must mean the wig for pubic hair, not an inability to spell American properly) .
The question remains, can there actually be a polite word that describes those who obey those in power blindly, those who feel "safer" in the arms of their government than they do when they are free to choose their own destiny? Sheeple seems tame by comaprison.
Is there a reason why a continuing theme of popular British fiction revolves around this very conundrum? Is there a subconcious need for revolt brewing?
In the interest of fair play, my comments regarding "Sheeple" were also offered in response to continued but UNMODERATED attacks against Americans in the comments section.
Seems that it is always okay to blast the Damn Yanks but return fire with simliar intent warrants immediate moderation.
-
Friday 13th November 2009 21:19 GMT Whisky_35_Alpha
Evil, wicked, self motivated weapons.....
OK,
Lets see....In the UK, the law on firearms has gone so fucked up that merely touching or being in the vicinty of a firearms leads to mandatory 5 years in stir.
Specifically a responsible member of the public notifies the Plod that someone has dumped a shotgun in his garden, to a resounding response of we'll get someone there eventually.
Said person rightly feels that leaving a loaded firearm in his garden backing onto open ground where children play is not a sane option. He then unloads the firearm, makes it safe and secures it before asking the local cop shop if it is OK to deliver it to them for safety.
On arrival at the station the lovely boys in blue arrest him, charge him and he gets to court where he is found guilty of illegal possession, mandatory minimum 5 years.
So extract the head form the dank and sweaty orifice of your personal choice and get off your OOOOOOOH bad evil gunzzzzz high horse.
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Joke
-
Friday 13th November 2009 21:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Aftermarket opportunity
Time to get into the "retrofitting weaponry to power mobility equipment" business?
Speaking purely from a technical viewpoint, if he can safely steer a powered wheelchair with his mouth or chin, he should be able to steer a gun the same way. Those chairs are seriously heavy and would actually make a fine weapons platform!
Whether it's safe, or a good idea, I'll leave to the UK-vs-US crowd to debate (and risk being nixed by the Moderatrix/Bee-minator :o) )
On the upside, he'll not have any trouble with people blocking his path through Walmart with thoughtlessly-parked shopping carts. I do, however, hope that it's VERY obvious what mode the controller is in with a weapon locked and loaded, lest he inadvertently pull a Cheney when he just wanted to roll backward a little.
Mine's the Hoveround with the side-mounted miniguns...
-
Friday 13th November 2009 21:19 GMT TimeMaster T
@Christopher P. Martin
"Intentional homicides" , anyone intentionally killed by ANY means.
The homicides per capita only shows that the USA has more violence, not that it is all gun related.
"Firearms-related" mean ANY death caused by a firearm, including suicides which account for over 50% of the totals cited, and accidents involving firearms.
Firearms are not the cause of the above statistics, they do not simply rise up and shoot someone on their own. They are just inanimate devices, without a wielder they are nothing but paperweights.
The violence where guns, or knives, bats, crowbars, etc., are used is a symptom of social issues that need to be addressed. By focusing on "quick fixes" of banning guns the underlying issues, which will require more money, commitment and effort to resolve, can be ignored by those who are more concerned about getting reelected next election.
To think that simply banning private gun ownership will make all the related problems that lead to violence in general go away is idiotic at best and naive at worst.
As an interesting aside, when Australia banned all gun ownership in the late 1990's the rate of gun related homicides and other violent crimes involving firearms more than doubled in some areas.
I do agree that guns should not be in the hands of those who can not use them safely but the outright ban of private ownership is not the answer. The intent of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is to ensure that the Government can not impose a dictatorship without the people having the means to resist and to ensure that those same people would have a means to resist an attack on the home front.
Something to think about. If the city you live in was invaded tomorrow by a large armed force would the populace be able to resist in any effective means? I don't think so, though I also believe the US would not fair much better as most of the populace is untrained but the casualties on the attackers side would likely be much higher.
There are no easy answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.haciendapub.com/gunpage2.html
-
-
Friday 13th November 2009 23:42 GMT Heikki Härkönen
@Christopher P. Martin
Did you read all your references? If not here's some excerpts from the last (onehttp://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf) of them:
"Murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and cultural factors."
"Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely
wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in
the incidence of murder in any particular society. Though
many people may still cling to that belief, the historical, geographic,
and demographic evidence explored in this Article
provides a clear admonishment. Whether gun availability is
viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term
macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely
throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or
declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent
international pattern is that more guns equal less murder
and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think
that gun availability is an important factor, the available international
data cannot be squared with the mantra that
more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less
death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data
consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns
equal less violent crime."
Don't you now wish that you didn't include that in your references as it clearly contradicts your simplistic "figure it out" comment. Go figure.
-
Saturday 14th November 2009 06:58 GMT John Bailey
Right to bare arms.
As a wheelchair user myself, I feel qualified to point out that bare arms are pretty much a necessity. In a manually propelled chair at least, the sleeves covering the lower part of one's arms get grubby very quickly and the wheel rims tend to wear holes in any shirt or jacket that extends past the elbows.
-
Saturday 14th November 2009 13:15 GMT Steen Hive
@bandor @Heikki Härkönen
@bandor
"I'm surprised to learn that you need a license to purchase/own a gun. Perhaps I misread the constitution back in 12th grade. Hope my license to speak and worship is still valid."
You probably did misread it. Which part of "Well-regulated militia" didn't you understand? I mean James Madison et. al. may well have been drunk as a fucks when the Bill of Rights was drafted, but it's conceivable they *might* have meant what we would today call "the police" or even "licenses" to allow "normal" loons to vent their penis-envy with assault weapons.
@Heikki Härkönen
Of course Finnish people are usually too drunk to hit anything of import, except Russians of course. :-) Personally I think licencing firearms is perfectly reasonable, and anyone who can demonstrate that they are sane, atheist and otherwise not a danger to others should be eligible for one.
-
Saturday 14th November 2009 13:16 GMT Andus McCoatover
Effing hell!
Sounds as pointless as "Photography for the Blind". Can't understand it. Sure, I can get a licence to drive a deadly vehicle (Ford Pinto springs to mind) but once I lose the facility to use it safely (i.e., go blind from excessively reading the Spanish leaflet on "Youthful DIY Onanism" excessively), I lose that right. So how is this different? Surely, it'd be more sensible for his nominated carer to own the gun/licence, then the carer lets him use it when he wants.
I think this is a case of the US's belief in the infallibility of the Constitution failing to differentiate between a 'right' and a 'privilege'. Surely the right to "Bear Arms" was written into the US constitution in the days of single-shot muskets, not Glock 9mm's?
Consider - he shoots the animal, and, once the wheelchair's stopped spinning like a top from the recoil, he can't collect said deer/bunny/bird/college student.
As to his 'leccy chair 'scaring off' animals (Stephen Hawking can do that just sitting in a deckchair with those teeth), try 'Wikipedia' for the meaning of 'stalking horse*' in hunting terms. So, he needs a horse, natch. Actually, in a wheelchair, a pony'd probably be enough.
YouTube - where are you when we need you most??? Playmobil will have to be done, sorry!
* Hunters noticed that many birds would flee immediately on the approach of humans, but would tolerate the close presence of animals such as horses and cattle.
Hunters would therefore slowly approach their quarry by walking alongside their horses, keeping their upper bodies out of sight until the flock was within firing range. Animals trained for this purpose were called stalking horses.
-
Saturday 14th November 2009 16:27 GMT Eric Crippen
Rights vs. Responsibility
I'm for gun rights in my country, indifferent to my other liberal beliefs. I'm not into hunting, but others in my family are. I'm more of the target shooting type of person because I don't like being out in the cold freezing my butt off when I could be sleeping. That said...
The problem with this guy getting a gun isn't because he's a law abiding citizen, it's because he isn't physcially capable of being socially responsible with a firearm. Hunting is not just shooting some animal. Not all shots are clean and it's the hunter's responsibility to go and track the animal to finish the job, which some people are cruel enough not to do. This individual can't hunt by himself. Being about to remotely fire a gun doesn't give you the right to be irresponsible with it. Even if he did hit it. Who's going to lug that deer through the woods to the vehicle. I feel sorry for the guy, but that doesn't mean he deserves to own a gun. This is about as dumb as my former state (Michigan) taking a bunch of blind people out to hunt.
-
Monday 16th November 2009 04:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Well...
@TimeMaster T - Thanks for the wikipedia link pointing out that not only does America have the highest firearm-related death rate in the world, it's heading for double the rate of its nearest competitor (which is bizarrely Finland- and before you mention NI in that list, the stats are from a time when there was effectively civil war, so that doesn't count as the UK). I think it can be argued without question that if they didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to use them. And no, there is no other way of killing or being killed than with guns. Knives are safe, as are bolt guns, club hammers, and teaspoons.
@Heikki Härkönen - Heh heh. I got served. That wasn't the reference I meant to put in... I blame a copy/pase error... try this one:
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf
or maybe this one:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/322833
-
Monday 16th November 2009 04:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Pah on you all!
If the man in question had been trying to restore his ability to play video games you would be jumping for joy how great it was. Consider that he was a hunter before the accident, knew how to handle a gun, and was going through the proper channels to get a permit. Sounds to me like owning and shooting a gun was something he enjoyed and would be responsible about.
It only shows what I've seen about liberals; everything's open minded and fair only as long as it meets your narrow doctrine.
-
Monday 16th November 2009 04:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
Stunningly stupid....
...the number of people who presuppose this guy can't do things because he is disabled. Good for him for pushing for and getting his rights. The reason he can't handle a gun like the rest of the temporarily able bodied world is that the weapons are not made with his abilities in mind. That isn't his fault.
Now.. he obviously has friends, and he has assistance, and he appears to know what he is doing. He is experienced and nothing says that he is immoral or unethical. He also appears to be law-abiding.
Without disabled people pushing the limits and demanding change, we would still lock them away and there would be no public accommodations to allow them to live their lives in dignity.
This is a great story; it just pushes the buttons of those who are pre-prejudiced against public gun ownership. It also reveals how much latent distrust and prejudice exists against the disabled.
-
Monday 16th November 2009 04:50 GMT Goat Jam
Oblig Monty Python quote
Judith: [on Stan's desire to be a mother] Here! I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
