A 23-year-old man was killed early New Year's Day after a bullet discharged from a gun that a friend was handling and struck him in the head.
Responding officers booked Ian Lewis, also 23, into the Salt Lake City jail for negligent homicide. According to police, Lewis had picked up a gun and was handling it when it went off and struck Steven McKinney.
Both men are from the Salt Lake City area, said Salt Lake City Sgt. Robin Snyder. She added the incident is a reminder to always treat guns as if they are loaded.
RuffRidr recently told me that every gun owner he knows "wouldn't put up with this" and that responsible gun owners are taught the 4 Rules when they're kids. I guess the people who are making the news every day weren't that lucky.
What's your opinion? Does it sometimes seem that the percentage of irresponsible gun owners who were not raised with the 4 Rules is a bit too high? Do you think that's just a distorted impression based on the reports that make it to the main stream media?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Guns kill people when they're in the hands of people like Ian Lewis.
"Do you think that's just a distorted impression based on the reports that make it to the main stream media?"
ReplyDeleteLet's look at a hypothetical news report: "In other news today, John Doe was showing his friend Joe Blow his gun, today, clearing the chamber while pointing the gun in a safe direction. Mr. Blow inspected the firearm, and Mr. Doe put it away without further incident."
Not very newsworthy, eh? That's what happens a gazillion times for each and every bonehead-instigated tragedy, but no one talks about it, because it's so unremarkable. The Utah story gets press--and would even if the press had no anti-gun bias, precisely because that kind of idiocy is so remarkably uncharacteristic.
So if Billybob the idiot dances around in his living room, falls on a glass coffee table and skewers himself on a shard of glass, Grandma Sue's glass-top coffee table should be outlawed because, in the hands of Billybob coffee tables kill?
ReplyDeleteWhen someone doesn't get shot, it does't make the news.
ReplyDeleteFor every incident like this, there are hundreds of thousands on non-incidents.
All of you are absolutely right. The only question is what's the ratio. Zorro says a gazillion to one. Is that an exaggeration for emphasis, by the way? AztecRed says hundreds of thousands to one.
ReplyDeleteI think it's less than either of those. Whether it's small enough to be written off, as you guys seem to think, is the next question. Extremely strict gun control laws enforced on the national level would keep many guns out of the hands of incompetent and irresponsible people. Those laws would inconvenience the rest of the lawful gun owners, but it would be well worth it in the end.
Of all the gazillion bullets lawfully discharged while participating in the shooting sports, there are relatively few accidents. Far more people die playing golf each year.
ReplyDeleteAhhh, yes. The typical gunloon response to any gun accident is to claim bathtubs, cars, iPods, glazed donuts, etc. kill far more people each year.
ReplyDeleteIOW, do everything to deflect attention away from guns. Let's nevermind the fact guns are designed with a sole purpose: to kill. Let's also nevermind the fact, in the US, anyone can buy virtually any firearm without knowing which end of the gun is which.
--JadeGold
"Zorro says a gazillion to one. Is that an exaggeration for emphasis, by the way?"
ReplyDeleteI figured that might draw a reaction from you--kinda the reason I chose that wording. The thing is, "gazillion" is not a real number--it's like saying "a lot." I don't think anyone (even you, Mike) would dispute the assertion that guns are handled a very large number of times per injury inflicted with a gun.
In my own experience, having handled guns literally thousands of times (and that's no exaggeration)--maybe tens of thousands of times--the only "injury" I can think of is when I once stupidly took a recoil spring plug right in the forehead (boy did I feel silly). Left a small, faint bruise, that remained visible for perhaps a day.
I know many gun owners--many of them enthusiastic gun owners, with a lot of guns that they handle often--and I've never known anyone to have shot a person unintentionally.
Anecdotal? Granted--just like the Utah story--and every story you use to bolster your case that U.S. gun laws are not draconian enough.
My adult son wanted me to show a handgun to his brother in law. I cleared it, BIL immediately stuck his finger on the trigger and wasn't watching where it was pointing. My son corrected BIL, who said "don't worry, it isn't loaded".
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, that lack of basic gun safety knowledge is all too common. It is astounding that none of the "gun safety" groups advocate basic safety training. We teach children about safety in schools, why not devote an hour or two per year on gun safety? The four rules aren't as complex than pedestrian traffic safety.
Yes, but are the deaths while playing golf due to the game or other causes (e.g., heart attack)?
ReplyDeleteAs has been pointed out, the attraction of a firearm is its ability to cause death or serious bodily injury. Otherwise, wouldn't a non-lethal self-defence item (e.g., pepper spray) be considered as an alternative?
Laci, I never liked that " deaths on the golf course" comparison either.
ReplyDeleteSevesteen, You made me think if the reluctance to teach kids gun safety in schools is not similar to the reluctance to teach the proper use of condoms for fear that it will transmit the message that teenage sex is OK.
I'm opposed to the second one, so why wouldn't I also be opposed to the first? I think with gun safety, it would have the downside of carrying the message that guns are good and normal, which many of don't believe, and there would be little benefit unless the young person were given a full immersion into the gun culture. A few casual demonstrations would not have the desired effect. The sex education comparison, on the other hand, might do some good with a few demonstrations. Young people might be impressed with the dangers of AIDS and other STDs enough to remember that condoms help and although they wouldn't have learned enough in the sex education class to be experts in their first few experiences, they'd learn in the doing.
Zorro, I actually knew that "gazillion" was not a real number. What I don't know is what the true ratio is.
ReplyDelete...similar to the reluctance to teach the proper use of condoms for fear that it will transmit the message that teenage sex is OK."
ReplyDeleteI think either one can (and should) be done simply, briefly and strictly factually, without moral judgement.
"Sex is a very likely way to transmit disease and cause pregnancy. Some of those diseases are deadly. Only abstinence can totally eliminate these risks. Risks can be mitigated but not eliminated by using a condom..."
"Guns are dangerous and can be deadly, especially if handled improperly, or by anyone inexperienced without experienced, adult supervision. Risks can be mitigated by following these 4 rules...if you see these rules being violated, speak up, if the violation continues, leave the area"
In either case, there is too much teen sex and too many guns in the real world for the fantasy of "abstinence only" to work. Unless and until you manage to drastically reduce the number of guns and the amount of teen sex, people need to know the bare basics of safety *before* they are in a situation requiring the knowledge.
Teaching gun safety. What an interesting concept as I was taught that in relationship to my being a part of my school's cadet corps.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Sevesteen's comment about not supporting gun safety comes from ignorance. If one would actually listn to the other side, one might learn that such a group exists:
http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/web_resources.asp?category=Studies+and+Surveys
Unfortunately, their conclusions tend to back the "control" argument.
Again, Unfortunately, I do know of accidental discharges, which are far more common than the gun fanciers would care to admit.
As I like to point out it makes sense that a gun in the home will lead to a firearm accident since you can't have an accident with something that doesn't exits.
Unless, it is the Second Amendment concept of "personal gun rights".
JadeGold: "Let's nevermind the fact guns are designed with a sole purpose: to kill."
ReplyDeleteI have heard this before, and it's interesting to note when. It usually follows any analogy to another products which causes deaths. These analogies often effectively illustrate that claims or proposals made by anti-gunowner advocates would be silly if applied to another product. The purpose of the "guns are designed with a sole purpose: to kill" argument is usually to evade dealing with the analogy. Whether the debate has been about accidents or assaults, the intent is to avoid debate.
This evasive nature of the "guns are designed with a sole purpose: to kill" argument, and it's use as a device to avoid debate of the anology, should itself be highly suspect. Yet in another post I shall address the bogus nature of the claim itself.
The "guns are designed with a sole purpose: to kill" argument is usually made by those ignorant of guns or with an antigunowner agenda. It is surely aimed at those ignorant of guns, since those with much gun knowledge can easily see that it's false.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at two guns designed specifically for target shooting: The .22 short semiauto Olympic pistol and the 34" barreled trap shotgun. Their purpose is easily discerned not only by their design and usefulness for their target events, but also by the advertising of their manufacturers and their 99+% (far, far more than 99%) of their actual use being for those target events for which they were designed. These guns also stand out for their incredibly poor design for killing. The .22 short cartridge is so weak as to be difficult to kill with, and the 34" barreled trap shotgun is difficult to wield indoors and difficult to carry around even outdoors for homicidal purpose.
Anti-gunowner advocates have pointed out that these guns can kill, and have asked if one would want to by shot by one. Perhaps -- to the extent that one would want to be slammed in the head by a bat or hit by a 60mph vehicle. When you point out that these guns can kill, we are back to things like bats and vehicles which can kill, but are not "designed with a sole purpose: to kill" -- which is supposed to be the point of the argument.
Now let's look at guns designed specifically to kill. There are guns designed specifically to kill woodchucks and their are guns designed specifically to kill Cape Buffalo. As with target guns, buffalo-class guns are often easily discerned not only by their design and usefulness for their target animals, but also by the advertising of their manufacturers and their 99+% (far, far more than 99%) of their actual use being for the animal hunting for which they were designed.
And again, like many target guns, they are poorly designed to kill humans. While they can be used to kill humans, they are designed to kill animals, and their use on humans is a misuse of the game hunting function that they were designed for. They "guns are designed with a sole purpose: to kill" animals, not humans -- which invalidates the argument behind "designed with a sole purpose: to kill."
Are there guns "designed with a sole purpose: to kill" humans? Yes -- so what about gun control (or worse) on those? If we ignore the self-defense and Second Amendment issues, we see that is still a bogus question because anti-gunowner advocates will never in the long term allow significantly lesser regulation of target and hunting guns. One could imagine a proposal that at first puts less additional regulations on target and hunting guns, but would anyone actually argue that anti-gunowner advocates would ever be content with anything less than "strict gun control" on all guns?
"Those laws would inconvenience the rest of the lawful gun owners, but it would be well worth it in the end."
ReplyDeleteIt's not worth it until it saves more people than it inconveniences.
The point of the comparison to golf is that there are very few accidents with firearms considering that far more people participate in the shooting sports than any other sport.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, even if you throw in DGUs as well as shots fired as criminal misuses of firearms, fatalities are still relatively small in comparison to the gazillion rounds fired safely in legitimate sporting uses each year.
Unfortunately there are always some that didn't get the memo. This is why basic gun safety should be taught in schools like it is in West Virginia.
AztecRed said, "It's not worth it until it saves more people than it inconveniences."
ReplyDeleteMan, you are dedicated to your cause, saving lives should be compared to inconvenience?
Would it be fair to say that guns were designed to kill and the first target practice was to be proficient at killing? Only later did the shooting sports develop.
ReplyDeleteSevesteen, That's a great description of both the gun safety and the sex education teachings. But I wondered if abstinence is more prevalent and possible with guns than it is with sex. I mean, young people are for the most part going to begin having sexual relations sooner or latter, almost all of them. But can the same be said about exposure to guns? Can you say almost all will have exposure to guns?
ReplyDelete"Man, you are dedicated to your cause, saving lives should be compared to inconvenience?"
ReplyDeleteWhen you're talking about restricting people's rights, it's a good comparison.
As cliche as it sounds, freedom means people are going to get hurt and even die.
Penn Jillette pretty much sums up my opinion in a much more entertaining fashion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPnvwdwuU9M
Abstinence from firearms isn't hard, but how many people go their lives without human contact, MikeB?
ReplyDeleteYour argument is rather flawed. A proper comparison would be between trained and untrained people participating in both activities.
Since such a study is inhumane, your position is invalid.
"As I like to point out it makes sense that a gun in the home will lead to a firearm accident since you can't have an accident with something that doesn't exits."
ReplyDeleteHow silly, so all firearms cause accidents now?
AztecRed, Send me that link again. I like Penn.
ReplyDeleteJadegold said: "Let's also nevermind the fact, in the US, anyone can buy virtually any firearm without knowing which end of the gun is which."
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with you JadeGold. Let's make gun safety courses a school requirement. I'm 100% convinced that we would see a sharp decline in accidental shootings if everyone had the same training that I received as a kid.
Mikeb; "Would it be fair to say that guns were designed to kill and the first target practice was to be proficient at killing?"
ReplyDeleteOne could say that guns were originally invented to kill but now are designed for many sporting purposes as well.
Although that lacks cachet as a handy all-purpose tool to dismiss all analogies that effectively illustrate that claims or proposals made by anti-gunowner advocates would be silly if applied to another product.
Roughly half of American households have guns. I would be surprised to find that less than 3/4 of Americans have handled a gun at least once--In most cases this will be without knowing the bare minimum of gun safety. That includes me--I owned my first gun, and had my first carry license before I knew enough about safety.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, I don't know that the accidental firearms death rate is high enough to justify universal training, but training is a less intrusive and more logical response to an accidental death than to add restrictions on people who do know better.
Sevesteen's comments are simply absurd. Basically, he admits to owning and carrying around a firearm without adequate safety training. But he doesn't want mandatory safety training because it might be an imposition on those "who do know better."
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, short of shooting and killing your NRA instructor, nobody fails an NRA safety course. And I'm not certain shooting the instructor would earn a failing grade.
My very first NRA safety instructor was missing a thumb. He lost it while cleaning a firearm.
The vast majority of those "who do know better" -- don't. They merely think they do because they've popped off a lot of rounds. In fact, many of the gunloon bloggers like to post pictures of themselves in various poses with firearms. Quite a few of them are pictured violating basic safety precautions. When pressed on the issue, these self-styled experts will say things such as "I knew the gun was unloaded" or some other nonsense.
FJ: I'm shocked you believe a .22 short can't kill or injure. After all, the .22 short was specically designed as a self defense round.
As for your claim that sport firearms aren't designed to kill--that's also false.
--JadeGold
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "I'm shocked you believe a .22 short can't kill or injure."
ReplyDeleteAs usual for a JadeGold post, that's NOT what I wrote, which was: "The .22 short cartridge is so weak as to be difficult to kill with"
"Difficult to kill with" -- NOT "can't kill or injure."
JadeGold: "After all, the .22 short was specically designed as a self defense round."
So was the .41 short rimfire, which ALSO turned out to be so weak as to be difficult to kill with. The .41 short rimfire is mostly gone but the .22short has become a target round.
JadeGold: "As for your claim that sport firearms aren't designed to kill--that's also false."
Except that I showed otherwise, and you show bupkis.
Jade: Where did anyone, let alone FJ, say that a .22 short can't kill?
ReplyDeleteThe Anti-rights claim "the only purpose is to kill" is absurd. The purpose of a firearm is to emit a projectile. The intent of which is subjective.
A knife analogy is appropriate here, as all knives are designed for cutting things, but the intent is different.
"AztecRed, Send me that link again. I like Penn."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPnvwdwuU9M
AztecRed, Thanks for trying again. This time I read the "fine print."
ReplyDeleteThe video contains Sony pictures and is blocked in my country.
Kevin, I don't agree with your comparison between knife and gun when talking about their primary purpose. I think you should ask Joe Huffman for some help with your deductive logic.
ReplyDeleteKnives were made to cut, not necessarily humans, but they can be used also for that.
Guns were made to shoot and kill humans, but they can be used for other things.
Guns were made to shoot and kill humans
ReplyDeleteReally? Do you have proof of this? They were made to fire a projectile.
Are you claiming that guns can only be shot at humans?
The primary purpose of a knife is to cut. What it cuts, be it an onion, steak, deer or a human being is entirely dependent on the person wielding the knife.
ReplyDeleteThe primary purpose is to cut things. Yes, some people use them to assault other people, but that doesn't mean the primary purpose of the knives in MY butchers block has anything to do with harming other people.
Can my steak knife be used to hurt someone? Sure, yet I don't use it for that purpose. To be sure some people do use them for such nefarious purposes.
Can guns be used to harm people? Sure. Have mine? No. They fire a projectile and are not functionally different from those projectile firing devices used by violent criminals.
Whether it's a gun, steak knife or chainsaw it is the intent (and actions) of the user that are the important variables.