Witnesses reported that an accidental shooting occurred Saturday at the Crossroads Gun Show at Mesa’s Centennial Hall.
The gun show on Center Street saw hundreds of sellers and buyers milling around in the noisy venue until the loud crack of a solitary gun shot.
The show, packed with an estimated 200 to 300 people, fell silent about 11:30 a.m., and then came the screams of a woman who was grazed in the neck by a bullet witnesses said was accidentally discharged by a vendor.
I realize this doesn't happen very often, but it does illustrate the problem with gun proliferation. When more and more people have guns legally, the chances of accidents and mistakes increases proportionately, as does the chances of other types of misuse.. That's exactly why people, non-gun-owning people, favor gun free zones. And this is exactly what's wrong with the seemingly increasing movement to expand gun rights.
Witnesses, some of whom were standing at the table of an unidentified vendor said, his weapon accidentally discharged. They said the vendor was crouched below his table when the gun went off.
What do you think that means? Was he banned from this particular gun show for life? Do you think that's sufficient? Are people who handle guns all day long every day allowed a certain number of accidents? Should the sanctions for an accident that injures or kills someone be more severe than one which doesn't? Are we to understand that this particular vendor is still in business, just not at this venue?The identity of the woman who was injured was not available late Saturday, but witnesses reported that she was taken away by ambulance. The vendor was escorted from the venue “and banned for life.”
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
What do you think that means? I think that it means the vendor violated one of the rules of the gun show. Every show I have ever been to has a sign posted saying "No loaded firearms allowed." Next, there is rarely if ever such a thing as an accidental discharge. Guns don't shoot themselves. Someone's finger was where it was not suppose to be.
ReplyDeleteWas he banned from this particular gun show for life? Do you think that's sufficient?Probably. If I was the gunshow promoter I would. What else can the gun show promoter do? He has no legal authority to fine or imprison him. However, I am certain that the police will charge him with something if a law was broken (which most likely it was).
Are people who handle guns all day long every day allowed a certain number of accidents?? No. And based on what I know about this story, it wasn't an accident. It was negligence.
Should the sanctions for an accident that injures or kills someone be more severe than one which doesn't? Yeah. And they are. You don't get to shoot someone and say it was an accident and then not have any consequences. Sort of like if you are in a car accident with a tree they may charge you with reckless driving. However, the same accident with another vehicle that kills someone may get you a charge of vehicular manslaughter.
Are we to understand that this particular vendor is still in business, just not at this venue?
Probably. Unless there is some law that is going to revoke his FFL (if he was an FFL) for a negligent/accidental discharge. However, depending on how much of his business was from gun shows and word of his reputation gets around, his customer base might be severely diminished. There are more than enough people to buy guns from who have NEVER (and I do mean NEVER) had a negligent/accidental discharge that I wouldn't buy from someone who I knew had one. Having one shows that you have probably violated at least one of the 4 safety rules. Rarely does something bad happen the first time you violate one. So he has probably violated them multiple times before. (I also don't buy guns from people who don't check to see that it is unloaded before handing it to me or cover me with the muzzle).
When more and more people have guns legally, the chances of accidents and mistakes increases proportionately, as does the chances of other types of misuse. Except that is not the trend that the data shows. Number of firearms in the US has increased by 10-15% since 2001. According to WISQARS both accidental death and injury rates from firearms has decreased by 10-20%.
I realize this doesn't happen very often . . .
ReplyDelete"Doesn't happen very often" is one way to put it--another, more informative way would be to say that it happens at one in thousands of gun shows, totaling millions of people with millions of guns.
. . . but it does illustrate the problem with gun proliferation.
No, it illustrates the problem with negligence. By saying that it "illustrate[s] the problem with 'gun proliferation,'" you expose your disingenuousness when you claim that you seek only to "diminish the 'gun flow' into the criminal world"--this wasn't a Baltimore gang-banger or a Mexican drug cartel enforcer who gained access to a gun via "lax gun laws"--it was a negligent fool who should have known better. You can outlaw fools, I suppose, but enforcement would be difficult.
I see Reputo deftly handled some other points I was going to make.
By the way, "grazed in the neck," although undoubtedly terrifying, doesn't sound like a very serious injury.
ReplyDeleteFor advocates of forcible citizen disarmament to dance in the blood of the victims is of course nothing new, but hats off, Mikeb, at your apparent ability to dance in so little of it.
If I can be forgiven for being so presumptuous as to offer a suggestion for a slogan for the Mikeb Campaign Against Gun Owners:
No tragedy is too small to exploit!
Says Reputo:
ReplyDeleteExcept that is not the trend that the data shows. Number of firearms in the US has increased by 10-15% since 2001. According to WISQARS both accidental death and injury rates from firearms has decreased by 10-20%.
And Reputo makes the checkmate move. We don't even need to argue (correctly) that correlation does not equal causation, because we can show that the two trend lines you, Mikeb, apparently claim as having a causative correlation are moving in opposite directions.
Back to the old, well-worn drawing board, eh, Mikeb?
Actually, it seems to be an issue of lack of gun education. This country has made guns into talismans or magical icons as opposed to the tools they are.
ReplyDeleteWith all the firearms in this country, I'm amazed we don't have education for basic safe handling (e.g. don't touch the darn trigger, either know how to check, or have someone who does know check if it's loaded, etc.), which would have dramatically decreased the odds of this already unlikely event from ever happening.
Just out of curiosity, wanted to see how this read, replacing 'guns' with those deadly menaces, 'cars'):
"I realize this doesn't happen very often, but it does illustrate the problem with car proliferation. When more and more people have cars legally, the chances of accidents and mistakes increases proportionately, as does the chances of other types of misuse.."
With that, your quote of:
"Are we to understand that this particular vendor is still in business, just not at this venue?"
Why not? People with multiple drunk driving convictions who have killed someone still keep their licenses in this country.
Also, prove that it was the vendor who was truly at fault? There have been incidents where people with anti-gun attitudes enter a gun show with some bullets in a pocket and try to slip one into a firearm hoping for just an incident. Of course, they frequently know nothing about what they're doing and bullets of the wrong size are found inserted, but that's another issue about actually knowing and understanding exactly what it is you're opposing. That's a whole blog entry in and of itself.
I'm with CJ on this. I think it was a 10%.
ReplyDeleteOne of those 10% of gun control advocate who are out there breaking laws, pretending to be a pro-rights advocate.
I suspect it could have even been someone we know.....I mean someone was gone for 3 days, right?
What do you think that means? Was he banned from this particular gun show for life? Do you think that's sufficient? Are people who handle guns all day long every day allowed a certain number of accidents? Should the sanctions for an accident that injures or kills someone be more severe than one which doesn't? Are we to understand that this particular vendor is still in business, just not at this venue?
ReplyDeleteI think we should disarm cops:
Cop accidentally shoots himself
Cop accidentally shoots himself
Cop accidentally shoots himself
etc., etc.....
(for those of you who don't know, I'm just kidding about disarming cops)
Actually, this shows why if you will allow concealed carry at all, you should have minimal gun-free zones. Risk of accident is pretty much nonexistent for a holstered gun. Risk increases exponentially when guns are handled. This is even worse when the storage spot is in the cramped confines of a car.
ReplyDeleteGun shows have special risks, with more gun handling by more people in more difficult conditions to maintain safety than anywhere else. I'm fine with a lifetime ban from the show if you injure someone with an ND. Anything stronger would have to go through the justice system--Due process requirements and all.
beowulf said, "this wasn't a Baltimore gang-banger or a Mexican drug cartel enforcer who gained access to a gun via "lax gun laws""
ReplyDeleteVery true, but I would imagine the same guy who is stupid enough to accidentally fire a round at the gun show can't be trusted to secure his weapons properly when he goes home or to do anything else with guns.
You guys have got to raise the bar a little with this "right to bear arms" business. Some of you can't be trusted with that right, plain and simple.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWhy not call for people with children to raise the bar?
I can point out story after story of a kid dying after being left in a car.
I can point out story after story of a mother killing her child. Usually in a bath tub.
Yet, you aren't calling on them to raise the bar.
See the problem, contrary to your bleatings, is you are focused on the tool.
We've shown you the statistics showing you that firearms are safer injury wise then most sports. Yet you still call for more restrictive laws.
We've shown you the statistics proving that firearm related deaths and injuries have been decreasing, yet you still call for more restrictive laws.
We've shown you the statistics that disprove "more guns = more deaths", yet you still call for more restrictive laws.
In short, it is hard to believe that you are trying to make America safer when none of the ideas you've floated will stop any crime or reduce farther the accidents.
Very true, but I would imagine the same guy who is stupid enough to accidentally fire a round at the gun show can't be trusted to secure his weapons properly when he goes home or to do anything else with guns.
ReplyDeleteYou guys have got to raise the bar a little with this "right to bear arms" business.
What are you suggesting, requiring that every prospective gun owner somehow "prove" that he will never, in the future, be negligent with a gun? Let me know how that works out.
Some of you can't be trusted with that right, plain and simple.
Some of us "can't be trusted," eh? You act all surprised when we object to being maligned when you say that "among the Republicans you've got the mindless close-minded masses [I still love the impossibility of that statement]"--claiming that the "among" means you're referring only to a subset of Republicans, and thus other Republicans shouldn't take offense. You claim that the same thing is true when you malign your mythical, extracted-from-your-ass "10%" of gun owners figure. This time, though, you make it clear that you're not speaking of some other gun owners--you mean some of us.
Here's the thing, pal--you can "trust" me with my dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo (not to mention information about improvised explosives), or not--I don't give a damn. I don't trust you--or any government agents--with my rights, either, and I'll do my level best to kill any who try to take them, and if that works and I'm still alive, I'll go after whoever sent them.
beowulf, Are you kidding with this statement?
ReplyDelete"I don't trust you--or any government agents--with my rights, either, and I'll do my level best to kill any who try to take them, and if that works and I'm still alive, I'll go after whoever sent them."
You usually sound like a pretty reasonable guy. Were you drinking when you wrote this? This is "grandiose victimism" at its best.
As I've told you before, Mikeb, the plan is to not be the victim--it's to make the would-be tyrants the victims. There are certain lines in the sand from which I, and the other 3%, will not be pushed.
ReplyDeleteStay away from that line, and I'm very much the "reasonable guy" you seem to think I "usually sound like."
Anyone who tries to push past it will find me very reasonably trying very hard to kill them--with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.
As to drinking when I wrote my earlier post--yep: over-chlorinated ice water, if I remember correctly.
Hey MikeB,
ReplyDeleteThis incident took place while you were gone right?
Can you prove you weren't involved?
I'm sure there are 10% (or more) of gun control advocates willing to break the law to make gun rights advocates look bad.
Can you prove you aren't one of those 10%?
Can you prove you weren't near the incident?
Could not find a suitable section so I written here, how to become a moderator for your forum, that need for this?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous asked, "Could not find a suitable section so I written here, how to become a moderator for your forum, that need for this?"
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I don't understand the question.
I feel this is one of the such a lot significant information for me.
ReplyDeleteAnd i'm happy reading your article. But should observation on some general things, The website taste is great, the articles is in reality nice : D. Good process, cheers
My webpage - traderush.com
What's up, its fastidious piece of writing concerning media print, we all be familiar with media is a enormous source of information.
ReplyDeleteMy weblog - Forex Trading