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.