38 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

You must also have a strong opinion about the armorer's negligence. Could you, please, let us know your thoughts about that?

According to what I have read about the incident three people are guilty of gross negligence.  The armorer, the assistant director who handed the gun to the shooter and the shooter himself.  In my opinion there is a chain of responsibility here and degrees of negligence.  The armorer to a lesser degree, the assistant director to a greater degree, and the shooter to the greatest degree.  The shooter is the last and most important link in the chain because at the end of the day he is the killer.  But all were grossly negligent to some degree and share in the responsibility.

I'm sure if this scene could be played over all three would have visibly checked the weapon to verify it was not loaded.

Noel

15 hours ago, pete_auau said:

Luckily i  live  in oz  and  don't  need  to have  a loaded  gun under  my pillow, since  we are not  allowed  to own  guns unless if  we  are  farmers  and  or  are  in a shooting  range  club  and  there is  a very strict  conditions  to those  people  who  apply  for  them,  they  got to have  police  checks  to see  if  got  any  health or  personal  issues  to  have  a gun.  Than  the  gun  and  rounds  have  to be  stored in a safe   separate  from each other. Also  its  a yearly  renewal as well  for  licenses.

You never really *need* anything, until you do, that is.

Dave

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

The right to bear arms "as part of a well organized militia" I'm paraphrasing, cant remember the exact wording.

Well, the exact wording is very, very important.

This is not political.  Simply quoting the U.S. Constitution:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

When the Constitution was written, all able-bodied men were part of the State militia, and as such, had the right to keep and bear arms.  Moreover, the "right of the *people* to keep and bear arms" is a separate statement, clarifying that indeed the individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, *reasonable* restrictions have been legislated over the years.  For example, one is not allowed to possess a fully-automatic weapon like a machine gun, or explosives.

Dave

 

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

Err... Charlie has asked that there be no debate about the second amendment people.  

A moderators job can be hard, I used to be one once. Let's make it easier for him. 👍 Comply and you get a cat point 😺

I wasn't engaging in a political debate over the 2nd amendment, merely stating the law factually, whether one agrees with it or not 🐱🐱

1 minute ago, kevinfirth said:

whether one agrees with it or not

Which is what starts the political debates.

Noel

4 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Which is what starts the political debates.

Noel

I'll leave it there, to be fair we've managed to get to 17 pages without it going south so far, on a topic with barely any aviation relevance whatsoever...let's keep it that way 👍🐱

Edit: Also, clarifying the legal aspect had the effect of closing down 2nd amendment meaning debate, not opening it up 👍

Edited October 27, 20214 yr by kevinfirth

16 hours ago, pete_auau said:

Luckily i  live  in oz

I wouldn't mind living in Australia or New Zealand myself.  When I was in the Air Force I spent three weeks at an Air Force station in Alice Springs.  It was hot but I loved it there.  I wish I could have gotten a permanent assignment there but I was just filling in for a guy who went on emergency leave.

Went into town a few times and hardly ever had to pay for a beer.  When a couple of us walked into a pub someone would shout, "Set some up for the Yanks."  The people were very friendly.

The only thing I missed was I never had chance to see the 'rock'.

Noel

1 hour ago, kevinfirth said:

barely any aviation relevance whatsoever.

 

Doesn't matter, its the hangar. In the hangar, sitting next to our business jets, cus we is all mega rich init... we talk about all manner of stuff. Even cats... because cats are awesome, as you know.

I'll give you a free one, and I hope you are keeping track of your cat points, its important. 😼

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

I wouldn't mind living in Australia or New Zealand myself.

 

My ex wife's dad was from NZ. When my son was 18 months old we hopped on a Jumbo and went to visit her relatives. Weird being Christmas and in the middle of the summer. Now my son barely slept as a baby, it was a nightmare. However, the drone of the 747's engine sent him to sleep. I told my wife that when we got back home we would get a 747 engine for the bedroom to get him to sleep.

We drove from Auckland down to Wellington, to my ex wife's grandmothers place in Lower Hutt. On the way we drove through Rotorua and had the pleasure of visiting a Maori family (friend of the family) that had a house on the banks of lake Rotorua. He nipped own his garden and steamed us some vegetables with volcanic steam. 😁

Fascinating place New Zeeland. Ill give it two cat points. 😺😺

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

You never really *need* anything, until you do, that is.

Dave

 

True Dave. But risk is always present in life. So the important factor is "probability". And in Australia and the UK and elsewhere in the world, given that the probability of being shot is so low, we don't need guns. 

Now if I lived in certain locations in the US, I would have gun turret on my roof, Claymore's around the perimeter, a high calibre pistol with awesome stopping power, a Star Trek style force field and one of those experimental Pancor Jackhammers that never made it into production. 

I'm kidding of course, but you get the principle. 🙂

30 minutes ago, martin-w said:

we talk about all manner of stuff

Hangar talk indeed. And this thread is a much better source of information than just listening to a bunch of guys swapping the usual lies about all the women they've known.

37 minutes ago, W2DR said:

Hangar talk indeed. And this thread is a much better source of information than just listening to a bunch of guys swapping the usual lies about all the women they've known.

 

Indeed and I admit, I haven't known many, but they have been, err... fascinating. 

Ignore

 

Edited October 27, 20214 yr by martin-w

12 minutes ago, martin-w said:

The assistant director on the movie Rust has told police that he didn’t check all the rounds in the gun barrel to ensure they were all fake bullets before handing the firearm to actor Alec Baldwin.

That doesn't absolve Alec Baldwin however.  It makes the AD culpable, but so is Baldwin for not checking himself.  A simple 30 second check would have have left the director alive today.

When you cash a check at a bank and you watch the teller count out the money do you not also count the money yourself to make sure?  I know I do.  Especially if an experienced teller counts it out rather quickly. I don't grab a stack of bills from the teller and put them in my wallet without counting them out myself first.  You can't go back to the bank later and say the teller short changed you.  It's your fault for not counting the money yourself.

And I think we all have to agree bullets are more important than money when a life might be at stake.

Noel

Edited October 27, 20214 yr by birdguy

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

True Dave. But risk is always present in life. So the important factor is "probability". And in Australia and the UK and elsewhere in the world, given that the probability of being shot is so low, we don't need guns. 

Now if I lived in certain locations in the US, I would have gun turret on my roof, Claymore's around the perimeter, a high calibre pistol with awesome stopping power, a Star Trek style force field and one of those experimental Pancor Jackhammers that never made it into production. 

I'm kidding of course, but you get the principle. 🙂

I get what you're saying, and agree with it in principle.

Here's the thing.  People from other countries have this idea that the USA is the "wild west" and a very dangerous place because the media reports these awful shootings and occasional massacres that happen here.  That's really not the case.  Yes, it is true that we have more violent crime than other similar countries on a per capita basis.  I don't know why this is.  However, violent crime against truly innocent victims *not in dangerous neighborhoods*(think South Chicago, certain areas of Los Angeles and New York City, etc.) is actually quite rare.  Most of our large cities have areas that are known to be dangerous, so people just don't go there.  I feel sorry for the usually poorer folks who are stuck living in areas like that.

There are tens of millions of Americans who own firearms and use them lawfully and safely.  It's just a pathetic few who harm people with them.  The problem is that even if we ban guns, the criminals, who by their very nature don't obey the law, will still get their hands on them.

Dave