Is this a pro-gun way of describing the events? Are the words, "a gun he was looking at fired as it was being put away," supposed to minimize the involvement of the shooter? Isn't this similar to the criticism often expressed to gun control folks, that they fear inanimate objects and don't realize the gun is just a tool and the real problem is the person using it?A 19-year-old Chandler man was shot dead Saturday after a gun he was looking at fired as it was being put away, police said.
Mark Martinez went with a friend to Jose Sandoval's home in the 2200 west block of Butler Street in Chandler around noon Saturday, a Chandler police spokesman said.
Martinez asked Sandoval, 58, to see Sandoval's gun.
Sandoval agreed and showed it to Martinez and his friend- Sandoval's nephew, police said.
After displaying the gun, Sandoval was putting it back into the holster when the gun fired, striking Martinez in the chest, police said. Martinez was transported to a local hospital where he died.
A Chandler police spokesman said the department would submit allegations of negligent homicide to the County Attorney's Office for review.
All of a sudden, when it's convenient, we hear the gun transformed into something that fires all by itself.
A second time in the short article we read: "Sandoval was putting it back into the holster when the gun fired." Does that mean when he accidentally put his finger on the trigger, the gun fired? Or are they trying to say the gun fired through some terrible malfunction, through no fault of the gun owner?
What's your opinion? What do you think accounts for this shabby reporting of the incident? Do you think pro-gun folks try to have it both ways, they like to mock gun control advocates by saying they fear inanimate objects, yet when it serves their purposes they themselves anthropomorphize the gun?
Please leave a comment.
MikeB: “Is this a pro-gun way of describing the events?”
ReplyDeleteNo. It’s the anti-gun way of describing events. Pro-gun people blame the user and not the tool. I think we’ve been pretty consistent in that regard. Why would you think this report is pro-gun?
-TS
Where do you get the idea that the mass media--traditionally in favor of every nanny-state infringement that a pack of rabid Helmkes could think of--is "pro-gun," rather than merely woefully ignorant about firearms?
ReplyDeleteWhile we're at it, how would it be "pro-gun" to blame the gun, rather than the negligent owner? It seems to me that the opposite would be the case. If there's any subtle (by newspaper standards) editoirializing going on here,it's in portraying guns as so dangerously unpredictable that they can spontaneously fire all by themselves.
:Is this a pro-gun way of describing the events?"
ReplyDeleteMost pro gun folks I know would say that it was a negligent discharge and the man followed any of the proper rules it would not have happened.
Blaming the gun rather than the shooter is an anti-freedom loon approach.
No. It’s the anti-gun way of describing events. Pro-gun people blame the user and not the tool.
ReplyDeleteBingo. MikeB and his ilk blame an inanimate object, while us normal folks think that people are responsible for their own actions.
You have to understand the relationship of the gun to the gunloon; it is akin to a religious relic. It can never be used for evil, it can only be used for good. It has mystical powers like that.
ReplyDelete"Negligent discharge" is like "immaculate conception." They are terms of faith, not reality.
--JadeGold
Is this a pro-gun way of describing the events?
ReplyDeletePlease explain why you think this would be pro-gun. If anything, I see it as the opposite. Anti-gun activists are very fond of telling us how dangerous guns are and how they can go off at any time.
Are the words, "a gun he was looking at fired as it was being put away," supposed to minimize the involvement of the shooter?
If the shooter uttered those words, then absolutely he is trying to lessen his responsibility.
JG, how is "negligent discharge" a faith-based term?
ReplyDeleteAs a term, it accurately states the discharge of the weapon was caused by negligence, specifically the negligence of the person who broke Rule Three. How is "faith" involved?
JG, how is "negligent discharge" a faith-based term?
ReplyDeleteFaith is heavily involved because it requires a number of beliefs. First, that every gunloon religiously follows gun safety protocols. Second, that said protocols will prevent 'acccidents.'
Neither are true. Gunloons tend to believe gun safety protocols are for someone else. Additionally, gun safety rules only lessen risk, they do not avoid risk altogether.
Thus, we cannot seriously apply the term 'accidental discharge' to any gun accident.
--JadeGold
Ok Jade. If you can't a call a negligent discharge a negligent discharge, what in all of your extensive firearm omnipotence and gun show attending experience would you call a negligent discharge?
ReplyDeleteJadeGold spewed: Additionally, gun safety rules only lessen risk, they do not avoid risk altogether.
ReplyDeleteI guarantee you that if you follow the 4 gun safety rules, that you will not accidentally shoot someone. I don't see how it would be possible. Why is it that you are against educating people about these safety rules?
I thought it was clear the reason I think the AZ Central writer is pro-gun, besides the fact that he comes from Arizona, is that by blaming the gun, as silly as that is, he was lessening the involvement of the gun owner.
ReplyDeleteThis would be a perfect example of how the pro-gun crowd often enjoy a double standard. When it's convenient, you focus on the gun. When we do, you mock and ridicule.
"Faith is heavily involved because it requires a number of beliefs. First, that every gunloon religiously follows gun safety protocols. Second, that said protocols will prevent 'acccidents."
ReplyDeleteNow does the term "negligent discharge" require the belief that EVERYONE ALWAYS follows the 4 rules? The term "negligent" makes it clear that the person in question did not do so.
Adherence to 4 rules DOES prevent such discharges. Short a mechanical defect, my firearms CANNOT fire unless I violate rule # 3. If I violate rule # 3 but do not simultaneously violate any of the others my negligent discharge won't harm me or anyone else (other than hearing damage of course)
Where to start?
ReplyDeleteMikeb says:
I thought it was clear the reason I think the AZ Central writer is pro-gun, besides the fact that he comes from Arizona . . .
So a journalist who writes for the AZ Central must necessarily "come from Arizona"? Or perhaps you know more about the AZ Central article's author than we do . . . then again, maybe not, since you refer to Ofelia Madrid as "he." Not to mention that even if Ofelia is from Arizona, it's puzzling how someone who claims to "hate to generalize" would automatically assume that an Arizona origin necessarily indicates a pro-gun viewpoint.
. . . is that by blaming the gun, as silly as that is, he[?] was lessening the involvement of the gun owner.
You still seem to be under the impression that gun rights advocacy counts on absolving the shooter for stupid negligence that results in tragedy--presumably because you think that we're desperately trying to minimize your laughable "10%" notion.
That's just plain silly, Mikeb--we're not the ones who believe that gun owners in general share any culpability for his negligence, so we have no problem placing 100% of the blame on him (and 0% on the gun). It's only among the "famous 0.01%" who believe that all gun owners should face additional restrictions because of the stupidity of a tiny minority, that one would find concern about how the shooter's actions reflect on gun owners in general.
Mikeb, from the article: "A 19-year-old Chandler man was shot dead Saturday after a gun he was looking at fired as it was being put away, police said."
ReplyDeleteAnd: "After displaying the gun, Sandoval was putting it back into the holster when the gun fired, striking Martinez in the chest, police said.
Is this pro-gun bias by the reporter or relating the facts as told to him by the police? Maybe you can say that the police have a pro-gun bias. That could be the case, or they could be relating the facts as listed in the official police report, which would be the testimony of the shooter. I'd imagine the shooter would have a bias. That bias would be saying anything that would keep him out of jail.
Wow, I'm not entirely sure you're rooted in reality, JG.
ReplyDeleteAre you using the terms accidental and negligent as interchangeable terms?
First of all, there's a huge difference between AD (accidental discharge) and ND (negligent discharge). Both are Unintended Discharges, but they are not the same, and they are not interchangeable.
"Negligence" is rooted in the concept that every round fired from a gun is either deliberate, or not. If it is deliberately fired, no further discussion is necessary, I would hope (although I would expect you to argue even that).
If it is not deliberate, it must be unintended, and fall into one of two categories--accidental or negligent.
A true accidental discharge is one where the user of the firearm bears no direct resposibility to causing the firearm to fire. In other words, usually a mechanical failure of the gun itself. The user is generally uninvolved. (A great example of this comes from a Viet Nam vet who told me of an incident that happened to someone he knew. His friend picked up two M-16s by their carrying handles on the top of the rifle (no where near the trigger) and as he crossed the base one of the weapons discharged, going full auto for about six rounds. According to my friend, the base armorer discovered a faulty sear on the weapon that fired.)
A negligent discharge is one where the user bears the responsibilty for causing the unintended discharge---their negligence caused the discharge.
Almost every example listed as an accidental shooting here on MikeB's blog is actually a negligent discharge, not an accidental discharge.
If we can look at the Four Rules and see that the user violated none of them, we can probably rule out negligence (but not always). If the user violated even one of them, then it qualifies as a negligent discharge.
As for the rest of your drivel, I'm guessing you have stats to back up your claims that gun owners don't practice gun safety?
Otherwise it's just more of your "flying feces."
"...the reason I think the AZ Central writer is pro-gun, besides the fact that he comes from Arizona..."
ReplyDeleteSo if one is from Arizona, they automatically must be pro gun? Man, that means everybody in San Fran...well, never mind.
Let's be honest here. Most members of the media (journalists, reporters, editors) are utterly uneducated on firearms and gun ownership, and often use words for 'shock and awe' purposes. (I have great example from a Philly TV station that referred to a guy as a 'vigilante' for shooting at someone who was trying to rob him.)
They use words like "accidentally" when they really mean "negligently." If they are doing it on purpose, then they are trying to sensationalize the violence or the gun angle, and if they are doing it through ignorance, they are still culpable, but it is entirely forgiveable.
Judging from my answered emails to editors, reporters and journalists when I call them on their mistakes, I'd say about eight in ten do it through ignorance. The rest do it on purpose, I gather.
JG, that was a horrible failure of explaining how a negligent discharge is a term of faith. It would do you well to open a dictionary and look up the definitions of "negligent" and "accident" and note the difference.
ReplyDeleteThe term negligent discharge itself denotes that negligence was involved. Negligence is what happens the protocols aren't followed. Thus there is no belief that any protocols were followed at all, thus no faith involved.
So, I think we're all agreed. "Accidental" is just not the right word for these cases of "negligent" discharge of the firearm.
ReplyDeleteThen, of course, you've got the intentional shooting which results in the accidental killing of the wrong person, but that's different.
Zorro, My silly attempt at humor, by saying any person from Arizona would naturally be trying to diminish the responsibility of the gun owner, and my not checking the gender of that person, was obviously a big mistake.
ReplyDeleteI know you told my you don't like to be "picky," but now I have to wonder about that since you made such an effort on this one, two links and everything.
To your credit, I will say, you perfectly summed up my position with this:
"You still seem to be under the impression that gun rights advocacy counts on absolving the shooter for stupid negligence that results in tragedy--presumably because you think that we're desperately trying to minimize your laughable "10%" notion."
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteZorro, My silly attempt at humor, by saying any person from Arizona would naturally be trying to diminish the responsibility of the gun owner . . .
Ah--another of your "jokes." The thing is, it sounds just like all the other sweeping generalizations you incessantly make, apparently in all seriousness.
I know you told my you don't like to be "picky," but now I have to wonder about that since you made such an effort on this one, two links and everything.
Maybe you have a fancier way of posting links in comments than I do, but it wasn't that much of an "effort," and being the sort who likes to back up my claims with evidence (yeah--I know you think evidence is overrated), I thought the effort was justified.
To your credit, I will say, you perfectly summed up my position . . .
Your indefensible position, that somehow, the lethally incompetent and irresponsible negligence of someone I never met somehow reflects on me.
No, Zorro, that part that you got right about me was this:
ReplyDelete"You still seem to be under the impression that gun rights advocacy counts on absolving the shooter for stupid negligence that results in tragedy--presumably because you think that we're desperately trying to minimize your laughable "10%" notion."
And what I'm telling you, Mikeb, is that the gun rights advocacy position does not rely in the least on absolving the irresponsible and negligent shooter, to any degree, because his egregious violations of multiple fundamental rules of gun safety are all on him, and have ZERO, ZIP, NADA to do with the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I am perfectly comfortable with "throwing him under the bus," and don't feel in the least bit guilty for doing so.